After reading the Bystander in Chief, it occurred to me that the national government's response to the gulf oil spill, and the increasing criticism aimed at Obama, coupled with the reality that only BP has the technology to adequately address the spill, raises questions about the limits of presidential power in our constitutional system and its consequences.
We've grown used to thinking that the president can solve all problems, and presidential candidates do promise that they can, but can they? Is it realistic to think that the chief executive can adequately handle all possible problems? Remember that the constitution is structured to limit power, and despite the additional powers granted to the executive over the past century, limits still exist. Nevertheless, the presidency has grown in the public's collective mind where we expect the office to possess a magic wand and rid us of our problems. Maybe we should blame FDR and those fireside chats.
Of course since the country has swung against the idea of power in general, and regulatory power specifically, its worth considering whether the ability of the national government to handle emergencies in general (or prevent them) has been hamstrung by the political process. As with many problems we face nationally, I have a habit of blaming the popular sovereign. In this case we want to limit power, except when we want immediate forceful action, then we want pervasive power. Has the political process turned the office of the presidency into a position with responsibility but no control?
