Hello! Hello! Hello! Welcome to episode 38 of We Don’t Talk About P-word. 
Today, we will continue to discuss “What’s the matter with our government?” What is this week’s focus? The Presidency. This analysis will take longer than the others have. As the Presidency is essential to a political reset, I have put a lot of thought into it. One branch, controlled by one person, can achieve more for the People. In fact, this is how it was meant to be… but we’ll get there. 
So far when discussing the others, I have listed only one or two things to change. There are many more that would help, but in each instance, I chose to focus on simple, singular changes. I chose them as each would make a decisive difference in the partisanship of those branches. The Presidency is different. 
The first difference is that it needs more changes. The more important difference is that the executive is one person. It is the only place where an independent can make a lasting difference. It is the one place where a single representative can guide the government back to a democratic path. 
In the House, your voice is one of many. In the Senate, you are one voice among a hundred. Even in the Judicial, you compete with eight others. The Presidency is the only place where one person can both make a statement and ensure change. It is the only place where one voice can be loud enough. This is why the Founders were so terrified by it. It is why we must be careful with whom we entrust that power. 
The Founders worked hard to keep the Presidency from amassing too much power. Unfortunately, partisanship turned the Presidency into what they hoped to avoid. The executive branch has spent 247 years amassing a large amount of power that wasn’t meant for them. The sad part is that it began while the Founders were still the ones serving. 
The early Republic fell into the trap they so obviously saw in 1776. One person leading a nation is easier than a group. So, they began early to vest more and more power in the Presidency. Presidents, like Thomas Jefferson, would begin to claim powers not specifically delegated. Over time, we have allowed the Presidency to become more kinglike, all because… democracy is hard. 
It’s hard to maintain. It’s hard to lead. It can even be hard to love, but there is no doubt that it is the best form of government.
As Winston Churchill once said, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried…”
And this is still true today.
There are several reasons that the Presidency has become what it has. For some of it, I blame George Washington, but he only set the tone. He isn't the primary reason. It's because since 1800 (maybe even 1796) we have been electing Presidents… well, wrong. We attempted to right the ship, but we took the wrong lesson from the election of 1800. That’s how we ended up with the Twelfth Amendment.
I am going to be honest with you here. I have no idea what the answer should have been in 1800. The amendment may have been the best possible outcome. This may have also been the time I alluded to in Without the Fulcrum. They could have enshrined a system that encouraged independent candidates. But it is what it is. It is undoubtedly better than it was, and they certainly didn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 
Either way, things began to go bad long before the election of 1800. 
The obvious starting point is the arguments during the Constitutional Convention. Would it be a popular election, congressional appointment, or the electoral college? We settled on a compromise that gave too much power to slave states. It still favors some states today. (The change I proposed in Building Coalitions and Consensus would make this less of a concern.) The electoral college is a whole beast that I can’t even begin to tackle in this episode. Like many relationships, it’s complicated. The current political climate has no stomach for amending away the electoral college. I don’t foresee that changing any time soon, but who knows?
The aspect I blame Washington for happened early in his administration. But it sets the tone for politics until today. You see, Washington was always going to be POTUS1. (Or for the uninitiated the first President of the United States.) His reputation had earned him that. This is partially why they left so much of the executive branch vague in the Constitution. The other part? They had no clue what a democratic president should do, and they were afraid of what a president might do. 
They expected Washington to define the presidency. They expected this well-respected war hero to set an example. They expected future presidents to emulate his example. He lived up to those expectations. George Washington was the best first president we could have hoped for. He saw power as a burden or responsibility, not a goal. In most aspects, he set a great example for future presidents, and most followed his example. The most visible is the tradition of only seeking the office twice.
As great as he was, he did one thing that I hang a lot of our partisan nature on. He instigated an adversarial political system. Rather than encourage consensus, he often chose winners. Even if that is not how he intended it, that was how people like Jefferson saw it. This would get him labeled a Federalist, which he never was. One incident in particular set the tone for our antagonistic system of politics.
Washington understood his role in shaping the Presidency. He did everything in his power to remain “constitutional.” But as we have discussed, the Constitution did not tell him much about his role. As Captain Barbosa would say, it’s “…more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” Washington was very careful not to interfere in the goings on of Congress. Even if some of what they did amused and/or aggravated him. The first Congress did both when they attempted to limit his ability to fire cabinet members. 
Our government was designed to be cooperative, not combative. It is, after all, the democratic way. This is especially true with the Senate. This is the reason that the words “advice and consent” were written into the Constitution. Most people do not seek advice from an enemy. Most won’t consent to anything an enemy does. From the beginning, our Founders expected that we would be a cooperative democracy. 
I hate to admit it, but the government was designed to work like a corporation. Just take out the greedy, insatiable thirst for profit. There is a President to sit as CEO, and a Vice President to manage a chamber of directors. We have a chamber of managers to bring problems and solutions to the directors. There is even a board (the Supreme Court) empowered to make sure they all stay in line. Despite the intention, Washington ensured that the relationship became combative. There is no denying that Congress helped with that relationship, too. 
So, what happened?
On August 5, 1789, just over five months after his term began, collegiality went out the window. Washington nominated Benjamin Fishbourn as collector for the Port of Savannah in Georgia. Today, it is a courtesy to seek a Senator’s approval before making nominations for their state. This incident would precipitate that courtesy because, for Fishbourn, he did not ask. Georgia Senator James Gunn did not like Fishbourn and rejected his nomination.
Trivia time! All a Senator needs to do to halt a nomination in their state is to declare them “personally obnoxious.”  They need to make no further comment. At one point, it had to be declared on the floor, but not anymore. No other reason is necessary or even expected. It is known as “senatorial courtesy.” 
I must admit that my nerd-self imagines this event quite differently than it happened. From the moment I first read about this exchange (many years ago), I imagined it in a very dramatic fashion. So, first a dramatic retelling… 
George, wearing a suit that Uncle Sam would envy, marches down to the Senate chamber. He rolls up his sleeves, clenches his fists, and with a fierce kick, smashes the Senate door open. All business stops, and all eyes turn to the door. The President proceeds to berate the Senate as he walks up and down the aisle. He falls silent as he reaches the front of the chamber. There he stands, arms folded, tapping his foot, waiting for a response. The Senators look at each other and then to Adams for help. The look on Adams’ face says, “Don’t look at me.”  Finally, Gunn stands with fist raised and yells, “Because we don’t have to!” Washington stammers as he tries to form a response. None coming, he storms out, slamming the door on his way.
As exciting as that sounds, here’s what really happened. 
Unfortunately for Washington, he did not like being denied. Without invitation or even a heads-up, Washington marched into the Senate chamber. They were in the middle of a daily session, and the chamber was rightly surprised. Even John Adams seemed befuddled, but he quickly offered him his seat. 
According to South Carolina Senator Ralph Izard, “The president showed great want of temper… when one of his nominations was rejected.”
The President took Adams’s chair and began to rant at the Senators present. He demanded to know why his nomination was rejected. The Senate was rightly surprised. This was an unusual outburst of emotion from Washington. For a little context, he was in a bit of pain at the time, both physically and emotionally. He had recently buried his mother and suffered a painful growth in his leg.
According to the diaries of Senators, “many minutes of embarrassing silence” followed. Senator Gunn stood up. Since he was the primary reason for the rejection, he addressed the President. He made it clear that only out of respect for the General did he provide his reasons. It was a subtle but meaningful distinction, referring to him as General and not the President. He then made it crystal clear that the Senate owed him no explanation. He said that no explanation of the Senate’s motives or proceedings was due, or would ever be given, to the President. Washington quickly left.
Washington would immediately regret his choice to barge into the Senate. His next visit, a few weeks later, would be announced. He returned to seek the “advice and consent” on a treaty affecting Georgia and the Creek Nation of Florida. After some debate, the treaty was referred to committee. Again, Washington left angry, having expected it to be debated and consented to the same day. 
He returned a third time but still left unsatisfied. He decided that from then on, all interactions with the Senate would be on paper. This effectively removed the advice from the advice and consent clause. This was the first power grab of the executive. It cut the Senate out of proactive foreign affairs and forced them to be reactive instead. From this moment on, the Presidency and the Senate became adversaries. They were no longer allies as intended. This example set the tone for the rest of our government.
A government, designed to be cooperative, had now been set on a path of perpetual competition. Instead of coequal branches working towards consensus, we have jealous competition for dominance. The competition has only grown over time. This decision would contribute to the hyper-partisan government that follows. It's the same 247-year-old hyper-partisan government we suffer under today. 
I also have a more controversial reason why the Presidency has gone so wrong. Since 1796, or at the very least 1800, we have elected the President incorrectly. This is more than the amendment passed that would change it. That amendment was necessary, but it also politicized the Presidency. You could argue that was inevitable, and maybe it was, but that doesn’t mean it needed the help. The Presidency should be the least politicized role in the federal government. That is what the Founders hoped.
Unfortunately, we went off the rails quickly. It was as if we weren’t even trying to stay on track. We have discussed that the Constitution wasn't written with partisanship in mind. I have also shown that was intentional. From a sectional perspective and in the interest of the union, it makes sense, but there is more to it than that. The Founders believed they had created an executive that would be above partisanship. In theory, it could have been. 
Consider their expectations while writing the Constitution. They expected that George Washington would be the first president. For this reason, the executive was purposely left vague. They expected that he would set the example for all future presidents. They expected that the president would be a “man of the People.”
This doesn't mean he was the People's man. Let’s be clear that a “man of the People” in 1789 would have been very different from one today. Those deciding the Presidency certainly would have been. Most states did not choose electors by popular vote for the first few elections. Even those that did often limited the vote to only white males who owned land. Most state legislatures chose their presidential electors. 
Early in the Republic, the People were more connected to their state legislators. They saw these people at the general store. They bought agricultural goods from their farms. They sought their advice and counsel. These would have been the most respected members of their communities. They would have also been the ones who had the greatest grasp on government. Most Americans of the time trusted them to make decisions on the federal level. The People knew them personally, so they were themselves “men of the People.”
Even in states where the legislature chose, electors were trusted. They were trusted to make the best decisions for their state and country. The electors were tasked to choose the two very best men in the country. We know of Washington and Adams, both giants of their time. Ten others were considered in that first election. This included John Jay, John Hancock, John Rutledge, and George Clinton. Even the other lesser-knowns were still war heroes. The expectation was that the president and vice would be the best men in society. They would be men who understood government and foreign affairs. They would be men who resonated with the People and were above politics. 
But as I always say, the Constitution is aspirational. 
The first two elections followed this mold. The second presidential election saw partisanship creeping in, but it mostly remained nonpolitical. I could be convinced that even the third one was mostly in the same mold. The People saw Adams as Washington’s natural successor. Partisanship played a much larger role, but we still ended up with a “man of the people.” It was 1800 when things truly went to shit.
There was no way you could consider Aaron Burr a “man of the People.” These days the media likes to ask: "Would you want to have a beer with this presidential candidate?" Burr was not the type most wanted to have a beer with. You could say something similar about several founders. You either loved or hated John Adams. With Hamilton, you either loved him, hated him, or hated that you liked him. (I’m looking at you Jefferson.) But Burr? Most either disliked or did little more than tolerate Burr; he was loved by few. Throughout Burr’s life, he either made no choice or the wrong choice. 
To be fair, a lot of what makes Burr look bad is the fact that he often went against the grain. The few good choices he made were often seen as bad by his peers at the time. He supported women’s rights and emancipation and spoke against an elite class. His mistakes would overshadow these. (Shockingly, killing Alexander Hamilton while serving as Vice President wasn’t the worst.) 
Another trivia time! Before the 45th President, he was the only former member of the executive branch to be indicted. Naughty Burr made a series of terrible decisions. He almost ended up hanging for treason, and it had nothing to do with Hamilton. 
The election of 1800 was the first one sponsored by parties. Let’s just say the parties made a mess of things. Ever since, we have let the parties control the Presidency.
The Presidency became corrupted by politics. The President ceased to be a “man of the People.” He was now the “leader of a party,” dividing instead of uniting. George Washington saw it coming and warned us in his farewell address. I wonder if he realized the part he played.
The Twelfth Amendment would separate the vote for President and Vice President. This gave rise to a blatantly partisan election process. Instead of the two best men uniting and leading the People, it became the two most popular leading the party. The People be damned.
Like I said before, this could have been inevitable. The politicization of the presidency began in Washington’s first term. The constant tug-of-war between Hamilton and Jefferson drove Washington mad. It is also why Jefferson left the administration early in its second term. Adams contributed to the adversity with the Alien and Sedition Acts. The election of 1800 would clear its path. Jefferson’s presidency would enshrine it. Martin Van Buren would attempt to make it better but made it worse instead.
The Presidency was designed to be above partisanship, to represent the People. The Presidency is the fulcrum of American Democracy. The Presidency was designed to bring balance, to mediate party differences. Instead, the Presidency became a tool of the parties, which the other party cannot or won’t trust to act in good faith.
The Presidency is the only representative of the People in our government. It is a proxy of the People . By design, the Senate represents the states. The House represents the population of their states. The Supreme Court represents the Constitution. The Presidency is the only representative elected by input from all the People. The executive branch is the only branch that the People determine control, at large.
We are at a unique time in our history where we can end the partisanship of the Presidency. We are at a time in our history where the People can truly make a difference. We are at a time when the People can make our government representative of the People.
We have been armed with that power since at least 1972. By 1856, land ownership was no longer required anywhere to vote. In 1870, race and previous enslavement were removed from voting requirements. In 1913, we seized the power to elect our Senators for the People. In 1920, we enfranchised women. In 1961, we gave Washington D.C. the right to vote in Presidential elections. In 1964, we abolished poll taxes and ensured equal access for people of color. In 1972, we enfranchised those eighteen or older. Let’s not forget that our population has exploded since 1789. We have the widest and deepest pool of voters ever in American history. 
This is why the corporate and political elites have been working overtime to take our power. They know if they don’t act fast, they will run out of time. They know that if the People ever realize we can do more together than separate, they are in trouble. They know if we can reject the propaganda, the People can make a difference. They fear the day we see them for the partisan, power-hungry, opportunists they are. They know we can remove them from the equation. 
They count on our selfish natures. They count on us to be apathetic. They count on us to be too busy. They count on politics being too boring. They bet on our disinterest in the usurpation  of our power. So far, they are winning with that bet.
Imagine the look on their faces if we seized our power back. Imagine what a deafening voice a united People would have. Imagine what an independent President, elected by that voice, would mean for America. Imagine what Americans denying the parties’ power would do for our government. 
That is what we could achieve by reclaiming the Presidency for the People. 
A political reset would mean a democracy of the People. A political reset would return it to a government by the People. A political reset would finally make our nation for the People.
It is within our grasp. We are perfectly situated to make our nation ours again. We are also perfectly situated to watch our nation fade into history. Unlike Rome, here the People are the power, and it is up to us to decide who wins: the People or the elites. 
Only a united voice can reset American politics. Only united can we make the Presidency the voice of the People that it was meant to be. Only together can the People overcome the partisanship that plagues our nation.
Only together… 
We the People are the Power.