Imperial Presidency - Criticisms

Criticisms

Those that believe the presidency is not imperial in nature argue that:

• The Executive Office of the President makes up only a very small part of the federal bureaucracy and the President has very little influence as to the appointment of most members of the federal bureaucracy
• The number of people within the EOP is tiny and there is no institutional continuity at all
• The organization and functioning of most of the Federal government is determined by federal law and the President has little power to reorganize most of the federal government

It has also been argued that the concept of the imperial presidency neglects several important changes in the context of governance over the last three decades, all of which tend to restrict the actual power of the President. These include:

• Growth in the size and complexity of the federal bureaucracy
• A battery of post-Nixon controls on executive power, including transparency rules and "watchdog bureaucracies" such as the federal Inspectors General, a strengthened Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office
• The increased willingness of bureaucrats to protest or "blow the whistle" on policies with which they disagree, and stronger protection for such behavior
• Changes in information and communication technologies that amplify the effect of official dissent, and increase the capacity of opponents to mobilize against executive action
• Declining public trust in, and deference to, federal authority
• Declining executive discretion over the use of federal funds, which are increasingly committed to mandatory programs
• Declining capacity to regulate the private sector, as a consequence of the post-Reagan shift to neoliberal policies, economic globalization, and the growth of corporate lobbies