As the presidential campaign drew to a close, there was increasing concern about the job itself. Has too much power been stripped from the presidency? Alternatively, is the job simply too much for any one man to handle? Should it be streamlined? Reorganized? Aside from the incumbent, only two living Americans can answer from their own experience. One, Richard Nixon,.skillfully used the presidential powers ultimately led to his resignation and to some of the very weakening of the presidency that he decries. The other, Gerald Ford, inherited the office after more than two decades in Congress and performed ably. From their differing perspectives, the two ex-Presidents have written their views for TIME:
Imperiled, Not Imperial
By Gerald R. Ford
Some people used to complain about what they called an "imperial presidency," but now the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. We have not an imperial presidency but an imperiled presidency. Under today's rules, which include some misguided "reforms," the presidency does not operate effectively. That is a very serious development, and it is harmful to our overall national interests.
The biggest change since I first went to Washington in 1949 has been the revision in the relationship between the presidency and the Congress. Immediately after World War II the presidency was at a peak; the Congress was very responsive, especially in foreign policy. Today a President really does not have the kind of clout with the Congress that he had 30 years ago, even in matters that affect national security. There is not the kind of teamwork that existed in the '50s, even if the President and a majority of the Congress belong to the same party.
The main reason for this change is the erosion of the leadership in the Congress. Party leaders have lost the power to tell their troops that something is really significant and to get them to respond accordingly. The days of Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen are gone. That has adversely affected the Congress's ability to do things even in very difficult circumstances involving the national interest.
Part of this erosion of the congressional leaders' power has come from the "reform" of the procedures in the Congress. We went on a wild nightmare of reforms, and we really messed up the way the Congress effectively works. You could run down a list of things that have been done under the title of reform, and they all look good, but the net result is that the Congress has really lost its capability to respond. I think all the so-called reforms since the late 1960s ought to be reviewed to see whether or not they have been counterproductive.
The other big problem in Congress is that party responsibility does not have any real meaning any more, and that is tragic. Not that political parties should be free of criticism, but powers in the conduct of foreign policy, though his abuse of those same the parties provide a way for the public to see who is good and who is evil and who does a job and who does not do a job. The parties today are really more or less impotent, and if you do not have party responsibility, the system does not work.