How has the president’s power grown over time?

0:04The presidency started out strong and it's become stronger still. The president has a much bigger say over legislation in part because presidents are more confident exercising a policy veto than they were in the past. Part of that has to do with the rise of political parties and the fact that presidents run on legislative platforms. Early presidents did not have plethora policy platforms. They ran on the resume. They didn't run on promises.

0:31They didn't run on a tax cut and they didn't run on taking us out of a war. They didn't perceive themselves as having that influence over the system. Modern presidents are running on the promises that they'll keep once in office and many of those promises are legislative in nature. That encourages them to wield the veto pen or at least threatening. They're much bigger players in the legislative process than they were 200 years ago, or even 150 years ago. I think in foreign affairs, the president's influence has also increased. America was an isolationist country, a weak country. At the end of the 18th century, we were paying tribute to certain Barbary Coast states. Today, the American military is second to none, and America perceives itself as having interests overseas, formal interests recognized by treaties, but also informal interests.

1:19The president is the person that stewards all that, albeit with the help of Congress and so the president plays a far bigger role in foreign affairs. Of course, relatedly, the president plays a huge role in military affairs. The President always been the Commander in Chief per the Constitution. But that authority was understood in a far more limited way at the founding. At the founding, presidents did not believe they could use military force against foreign nations absent congressional authorization.

1:46We see this over and over again where other nations are declaring war against the United States. But the President doesn't respond in kind. He goes to Congress and gets Congress to approve military action. In modern times, presidents claim that as Commander in Chief, they can use military force without first going to Congress. It's not clear, the quantum of military force they believe they can use. But many of our smaller wars have begun through unilateral presidential action rather than go into Congress. That has tremendous consequences because once you start a war, Congress tends to want to support it. The troops are in parallel. People rally around the flag and the president almost invariably get support. That's a tremendous change from the original Constitution. Then of course, the rise of parties and the rise of the president has the party leader strengthens the president and interbranch disputes.

2:37Half of Congress, 40-60% of Congress identifies with the president and regards the president as their leader. When Madison was talking about the branches, checking the branches, he did not envision that part of Congress would be kowtow to the president because the president would be their party leader. He envisioned that each branch would jealously guard its prerogatives. What in fact, today, a good portion of Congress doesn't want to stand up to the president because that precedent is of the same party. Of course, those same people will stand up to the next president when they're of a different party. But the point is, they are incentives don't align with their institution given the rise of political parties, they don't necessarily align with the institution given that they also have incentives to align with their party leader.