There is clearly some truth in this moderate position: the day-to-day functioning of the executive branch appears more independent of presidential authority than it did before January 2017. And I think this sweeping argument hits an important reality of government power: Conservatives in particular have long understood that there are limits to the president’s ability to fully impose authority on the bureaucracy he nominally heads.
But even the most comprehensive version of this comprehensive case suggests ample reason to see a cognitively impaired president as a grave danger to the nation. Consider the analysis of Curtis Yarvin, a prominent advocate of replacing the current American republic (or current oligarchy, as he himself calls it) with a rational and effective monarchy. He explains, appalled by the naivety of my column, that in the current system the president has always been and already is merely a symbol:
In Douthat’s world, Pax Americana cannot survive a minute in the storms of history without an astute captain at the helm. How are we still afloat? Why have so many of our enemies, the enemies of democracy, the villains, not yet triumphed?
In my world there are no captains or helmsmen; there are only figureheads. Apart from the obvious embarrassment, it doesn’t matter if the figurehead is a little grumpy. In fact, I think it’s great. That’s why I bought that yard sign.
“Does anyone else think the same way I do about Washington?” Yarvin asks.
Who was “in charge”? My parents worked in Washington their whole lives. Like most of the 4 million Americans who “work” in the Executive Branch of the President, they saw “politics” as a vague distraction beyond their understanding, like a storm on a reef fish. At best, “politicians” could screw things up. The people at Tesla don’t see Elon Musk, the man who is actually “in charge” of Tesla, in this way.
That’s encouraging. But Yarvin also acknowledges that on the rare occasions when the “deep state” can’t agree on policy, the president must make choices to resolve internal conflicts within his government. He suggests that a magic 8-ball is used to provide the answers. Here are some examples:
Still, sometimes meaningful “decisions” make it to the Oval Office and reach the magic 8-ball on the Resolute Desk. I truly believe that without the personal decisions of both Trump and Biden, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would not have been possible.
That’s an interesting example! The personal decisions of the presidents don’t matter at all, except when the personal decisions of two presidents were decisive in ending America’s 20-year war in Central Asia. Just a little thing, no big deal.
Of course, Yarvin is right about Afghanistan. We withdrew from Afghanistan because we elected Trump and Biden, not Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But by the same token, one might say we invaded Iraq because we elected George W. Bush, not Al Gore. (Gore might have done something.) (Despite his involvement with Saddam Hussein after September 11, 2001, if he had been president, the invasion of Iraq would clearly have been less likely.) Similarly, some might say that our semi-engagement but not deep involvement in Syria in the 2010s was due to the choice of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or that the first Gulf War was fought in the way that it was due to the choice of George H. W. Bush over Michael Dukakis, or that we bombed Cambodia and made a deal with China when withdrawing from Vietnam was due to the choice of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey.
So the most powerful argument against the president of the United States playing a decisive role in U.S. foreign policy is that it still has as its remnants some of the most important decisions on war and peace made by the U.S. government over the past half century. Even if the president only has any meaningful influence when those decisions reach the Oval Office, those decisions are the ones that determine whether Americans live or die, whether regimes survive or fall, and whether allies survive or are abandoned.
Did John F. Kennedy determine America’s overall Cold War policy during his presidency? Probably not. I agree that institutions were far more important than individuals when it came to things like the lead-up to the Vietnam War. But did his decisions matter regarding the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis? For better or worse, they clearly did.
