The executive branch has gained excessive power since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Conversely, the Founders deliberately sought to preclude tyranny through a series of checks and balances placed on the federal government. The Framers recognized that the disbursement of power would indefinitely prevent executive overreach. But recent American presidents have continued to reinterpret these checks and balances, amassing seemingly endless power.
Two Sources of Executive Expansion
Two ways this has occurred are first, (1) the independence of the president’s cabinet secretaries; and second, (2) the tenure of thousands of previously appointed government workers each proceeding administration. Thus, “size and complexity” are two major aspects of the White House’s development, (Pfiffner, J., p. 98). James Pfiffner writes on the Executive Office of the President (EOP), that “over the course of the modern presidency, the various units of the EOP have become progressively more responsive to individual president rather than to the continuous office of the presidency;” this progression has shifted the power of the White House, as the “EOP are now the primary policymakers of the executive branch,” (Pfiffner, J., p. 99).
The first cause of America’s expansive executive branch is the distancing of its cabinet secretaries and the independence of their actions. Cabinet secretaries are “the president’s most important line officers” thus, are often strategically chosen, (Pfiffner, J., Ch 4-2). Abraham Lincoln appointed members of his political opposition into his cabinet, as did Obama; thereby assembling a “’team of rivals’ in his White House and cabinet appointments,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 3–11). Conversely, the President’s White House staff maintain a close working relationship with the president and are appointed on a basis of specialization, and his own personal interest. But, the president’s cabinet secretaries are chosen based on political decisions. Conclusively, many decisions, political factors, and externalities are considered when the president appoints his cabinet secretaries. Therefore, “it is predictable that the collective members of the cabinet will not be as personally close to the president as will the senior White House staff,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch 4-2).
The Second cause of executive encroachment is the tenure of the president’s appointed federal government workers. Notably, FDR’s 60 staffers were increased to 300–400 under Eisenhower and rapidly accumulated throughout the decades of contemporary presidents. By the twenty-first century, the total White House structure in 2001 “amounted to about 5,000 government employees with a budget of $750 million,” (Pfiffner, J., p. 99). Many of these workers are chosen to appease interest groups and delegate the president’s process objectives as the elected chief executive, allowing him to focus on domestic priorities.
Cabinet secretaries comprise a “small percentage of the total number of political appointments,” as the majority of a president’s appointees are government workers, (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–3). Although cabinet secretaries are appointed with a specific intention per administration, the majority of federal government workers are “appointed for indefinite periods, often for their careers,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–3). Often, these workers’ necessity conflicts with the political agenda of succeeding administrations, leading to a fiscal crescendo of excessive federal waste; a burden unto the taxpayers. Existing instances of centralized power are unlikely to be disturbed as not to “[upset] important power relationships” specifically of Congress and the executive, (Pfiffner, J., 4–2a). Therefore, any previous administration’s tenured government workers’ federal funding must persist each administration—even if these institutions are obsolete.
The Elements of the Executive
Cabinet Secretaries. The president’s cabinet secretaries are the main elements that have accumulated excessive power. Unlike White House Staffers appointed for their loyalty, the president’s cabinet is built on a multitude of factors that influence and impact their appointment—and does not always lead to favorable outcomes. Thus, “cabinet secretaries are virtually always advocates for their own departments,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch 4-2). This produces discourse in the agenda of the executive branch between the White House staffers and the cabinet department heads.
Historically, the Founding Fathers chose “not to saddle the president with any council of advisers,” (Pfiffner, J., p. 101). Alas, the “‘president’s cabinet’ . . . has no basis in the Constitution or law;” rather, it is “based on practice and president,” (Pfiffner, J., p. 101). The absence of a presidential council comports with Scripture in that man’s first council should be with God; and to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you,” (Matthew 6:33; ESV).
The Framers were clear that council ought to be considered on an ad hoc basis, rather than by force. The executive’s approach to council has drastically altered with contemporary presidents, as the majority of their executive actions have fallen reliant on their expansive cabinet, and staff.
The appointment of cabinet secretaries is the first executive action taken by the president, after inauguration; representing the first chance for newly elected presidents to retain the favor of their supporters. Additionally, the president’s “appointments of cabinet secretaries are often the first signals of how a president will act in office,” providing a sense of “symbolic importance,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–2). Yet these executive branch elements have accumulated the most amount of unchecked power.
Departmental secretaries often seem to be “captured” by the interests of their departments and swayed by their career personnel, who have a stake in the well-being of their programs—negating the interests of their impartial obligations. Rather than preventing executive overreach, “[s]ince the 1970s, the centralization of control of the executive branch in the White House has been a continuing reality in domestic as well as foreign policy,” forming political alliances (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–2).
The Utility of Accumulated Power
Department heads need “resources, money, and people, and they will fight for those resources” to do an effective job, (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4-2). As indicated by Charles G. Dawes, “the first director of the budget bureau and Calvin Coolidge’s Vice President,” that, “[c]abinet secretaries are vice presidents in charge of spending, and as such are the natural enemies of the president,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–2). Scripture warns against the detriment of narrative divisions within a community, that “[i]f a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand,” (Mark 3:24-25; ESV).
The roles of the department heads “[call] for adept use of budgetary, organizational, and personnel skills by the secretary,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–2). Therefore, the president fills his cabinet positions “with representatives of certain constituencies,” considering the politics of Congress and the expertise of his appointees. The president can thus utilize the implementation cabinet appointments strategically to appease political contention.
Nonetheless, “bureaus have ties to sympathetic members of Congress” who “influence departmental policy independent of the secretary,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 4–2). These spheres of influence each play a role in the president’s determination of cabinet appointments, his decision-making, and the overall role of the executive branch.
Conclusion
In sum, the executive power within the president’s cabinet remains competitive. White House staffers must compete with the actions of tenured federal workers, and the independence of cabinet secretaries causes the executive branch to suffer in its ability to facilitate a consensus within its administration. Thus, despite an awareness of its inherent internal disparities, the “reality of the modern presidency is that the White House staff will continue to compete with and often overshadow departmental secretaries,” (Pfiffner, J., 4–2a). The roles of the executive branch and the expansion of the White House staff have metastasized drastically since the Founding Fathers established the Constitution. America’s contemporary executive expansion represents a malevolent diversion from the Framers’ intentions of a self-limited government. The application of these foundation principles is the first step in mending observable disparities in the executive branch.
Bibliography
ESV. Matthew 6:33
ESV. Mark 3:24-25
Pfiffner, J., (2018). The Modern Presidency: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Cengage Publishing.
Jordan Muhsin 