The President and the Parties

1. The New Deal Redefined American Governance: From Party Politics to an Administrative Republic

The president and the parties: the transformation of the American party system since the New Deal.

A defining moment. The New Deal era, spearheaded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, fundamentally reshaped American politics, moving beyond the traditional "decline of party" narrative to mark a profound transformation. This period saw the culmination of Progressive-era efforts to loosen the grip of partisan politics on power, aiming instead to strengthen national administrative capacities and expand federal government commitments. This shift was not merely an interruption but a foundational change, setting the tone for 20th-century American governance.

Inverted Hamiltonianism. Historically, the American party system, rooted in Jeffersonian principles, was designed to curb executive power and resist centralized administration. The New Deal, however, sought to infuse the Hamiltonian tradition of a strong executive with a democratic purpose, creating an "administrative republic" where a powerful presidency would champion greater equality. This meant that the party system, traditionally decentralized and hostile to a strong national state, either had to be weakened or fundamentally reconstructed to accommodate an expansive federal role.

Economic constitutional order. Central to this transformation was FDR's articulation of an "economic declaration of rights," which redefined individualism and liberty to necessitate positive government intervention. This new public philosophy, viewing social programs as inherent "rights," laid the groundwork for an "administrative constitution." This framework aimed to insulate these programmatic commitments from the unpredictable nature of party politics and electoral cycles, ensuring their permanence and growth irrespective of shifting partisan tides.

2. FDR's "Purge" and the Limits of Presidential Party Leadership

Roosevelt’s participation in the 1938 primary campaigns, which involved him in one gubernatorial and several congressional contests, represented, as one columnist wrote that October, an unprecedented attempt by a president ‘‘to stamp his policies upon his party.’’

A bold intervention. In 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt launched an unprecedented "purge" campaign, publicly intervening in Democratic primary elections to unseat conservative incumbents who had obstructed his New Deal agenda. This aggressive move, aimed at liberalizing the Democratic party, highlighted the deep ideological chasm emerging within the party between its traditional, often Southern, conservative wing and the burgeoning programmatic liberals aligned with the White House. FDR, who initially saw himself as a president "of the whole people," reluctantly embraced this partisan battle to ensure his legislative vision could be realized.

Failure and realization. Despite FDR's immense popularity and direct appeals to the public via "fireside chats," the purge largely failed to dislodge entrenched conservatives. This outcome underscored the enduring strength of the "American system and tradition" against overt presidential interference in local party matters, a tradition deeply intertwined with constitutional principles like federalism and the separation of powers. The failure demonstrated that while presidential leadership could influence, it could not easily dictate the internal dynamics of a decentralized party system.

Transcending partisanship. The disappointing results of the purge campaign led Roosevelt to a crucial conclusion: rather than attempting to reconstruct the Democratic party into a fully disciplined, national, and programmatic entity, it was more pragmatic and effective to transcend party politics altogether. He shifted his focus towards strengthening national administrative capacities and relying on the executive office and bureaucracy to fulfill governmental tasks. This strategic pivot acknowledged the inherent limitations of party government in the American context and paved the way for a more executive-centered approach to governance.

3. The "Third New Deal" and the Institutionalization of Executive Power

The day of enlightened administration has come.

A systematic overhaul. Following his 1936 landslide re-election, FDR initiated what has been termed the "Third New Deal," a comprehensive program of institutional reforms designed to solidify the administrative state. This included the controversial court-packing plan and the executive reorganization bill, both aimed at freeing the presidency from the "constrictive grip of localized parties and laissez-faire court rulings." The goal was to establish a refurbished executive power as the "vital center of American politics," capable of directly influencing economic and social developments.

The Brownlow Committee's vision. The President's Committee on Administrative Management (PCAM), or Brownlow Committee, provided the blueprint for this transformation. Its recommendations sought to:

• Expand the White House staff, creating a dedicated "secretariat" of competent, anonymous assistants.
• Strengthen managerial agencies like the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) and establish a National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) for long-term policy development.
• Extend the merit system "upward, outward, and downward" to "cover in" New Deal loyalists, ensuring programmatic commitment within the bureaucracy.
• Overhaul independent regulatory agencies, bringing them under greater presidential control.
  These reforms aimed to make the executive department a self-sufficient policy engine, insulated from traditional partisan pressures.

Partial success, profound impact. While the most ambitious proposals, like the court-packing plan and the full scope of executive reorganization, faced significant congressional resistance and were watered down, the resulting Executive Reorganization Act of 1939 was still a landmark. It created the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the White House Office and a strengthened BOB, laying the foundation for the modern institutional presidency. This formal apparatus enabled future administrations to exercise extensive domestic power autonomously, accelerating the shift of authority from Congress and parties to the executive branch, and cementing the "administrative constitution."

4. Programmatic Liberalism's Enduring Legacy: Truman and Eisenhower's Consolidation

This legislative program was a reminder to the Democratic party, to the country, and to the Congress that progress in government lies along the road to sound reform. . . and that progressive democracy has to continue to keep pace with changing conditions.

Truman's Fair Deal. Despite initial perceptions of being a "little man" in Roosevelt's shadow, Harry Truman proved to be a staunch New Dealer, committed to codifying FDR's "economic bill of rights." Faced with a Republican-controlled Congress after 1946, Truman aggressively wielded executive power, using the veto over 200 times to defend New Deal programs and assert the presidency's role as the primary agenda-setter. His administrative actions, such as desegregating the military via Executive Order 9981, bypassed congressional gridlock and further solidified the executive branch as an agent of progressive reform.

Institutional expansion. Truman not only preserved but expanded the institutional presidency. He formalized the White House Office, strengthened the Bureau of the Budget, and effectively "domesticated" new staff agencies like the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Security Council, making them integral to presidential policy formulation. Paradoxically, even the Republican-led Hoover Commission (1949), initially aimed at reducing government, recommended strengthening the Executive Office, leading to the 1949 Reorganization Act that enhanced presidential control over regulatory commissions.

Eisenhower's "Modern Republicanism." Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first Republican president since FDR, further cemented the New Deal's institutional legacy. Despite his "hidden-hand" leadership style and public deference to Congress, Eisenhower accepted the permanence of the welfare state, famously stating that any party attempting to abolish Social Security would "not hear of that party again." His administration continued to manage the liberal state, albeit with a more moderate approach, and his creation of "Citizens for Eisenhower" organizations, independent of the RNC, further underscored the growing separation between presidential campaigns and traditional party structures.

5. The Great Society's Radicalization and the Twilight of the Modern Presidency

A great people flower not from wealth and power, but from a society which spurs them to the fullness of their genius. That alone is the Great Society.

Beyond economic security. Lyndon B. Johnson, a self-proclaimed New Dealer, sought not just to complete but to surpass Roosevelt's achievements, launching the ambitious "Great Society" program. This vision moved beyond the New Deal's focus on economic security to address the "quality of life" in America, encompassing:

• Expanded health and education programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Elementary and Secondary Education Act).
• Urban renewal and environmental protection (Department of Housing and Urban Development, Air Pollution Control Act).
• A "War on Poverty" with initiatives like the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) and Community Action Programs (CAPs).
  This radicalized liberalism, aiming for "fulfillment of our lives," pushed the boundaries of government intervention and presidential responsibility.

Executive-centered innovation. Johnson's legislative mastery, particularly in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, demonstrated the modern presidency's unparalleled capacity for policy innovation. His administration institutionalized new methods of policy development, such as White House-supervised task forces composed of academics and experts, and prioritized "merit" appointments through the Civil Service Commission, often bypassing traditional party patronage. This further centralized policy-making in the executive office, insulating it from congressional and party influence.

Unintended consequences. Despite LBJ's efforts to build a broad consensus and his initial legislative triumphs, the Great Society's ambitious scope, coupled with the escalating Vietnam War and urban unrest, led to the "twilight of the modern presidency." Johnson's aggressive marginalization of the Democratic National Committee and his reliance on an executive-centric approach weakened the party apparatus, leaving him politically isolated. The "new politics" of the 1960s, emphasizing "participatory democracy" and challenging centralized authority, ironically emerged from the very reforms LBJ championed, ultimately contributing to the fragmentation of the liberal order and the decline of presidential authority.

6. The Republican Administrative Presidency: Nixon's Challenge and the Battle for Bureaucracy

We can’t depend on people who believe in another philosophy of government to give us their undivided loyalty or their best work.

Divided government's dawn. Richard Nixon's election in 1968 ushered in an era of routine "divided government," with a Republican president facing a Democratic Congress. This exacerbated the challenges of modern presidential leadership, as Nixon confronted a federal bureaucracy largely staffed by Democratic holdovers and infused with programmatic liberal commitments from the New Deal and Great Society. Nixon accurately perceived this bureaucracy as ideologically hostile to his conservative legislative goals and sought to assert presidential control.

The administrative presidency. Nixon's response was to develop an "administrative presidency," a strategy to achieve policy objectives through executive action rather than legislative means. This involved:

• Expanding and reorganizing the Executive Office of the President (EOP), creating the Domestic Council and transforming the Bureau of the Budget into the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with enhanced policy responsibilities.
• Attempting to "capture" the bureaucracy by appointing loyalists to key positions and, in his second term, demanding resignations from non-career employees to reshape the federal workforce.
• Centralizing foreign policy in the White House through Henry Kissinger's powerful National Security Council, marginalizing the State Department.
  These actions aimed to make the presidency an autonomous policy instrument, capable of "dishing out" power to achieve conservative ends.

New Federalism and institutional combat. Nixon's "New Federalism" sought to devolve some federal programs to state and local governments, challenging the presumption of national-level management. However, this decentralizing philosophy was paradoxically pursued through a highly centralized presidential strategy, leading to "institutional combat" with Congress, the courts, and public interest groups. This era saw a shift in partisan conflict from electoral battles to struggles over controlling the administrative levers of power, further eroding the importance of traditional parties and accelerating the "Europeanization of American Politics" where ideological differences were sharply drawn.

7. Reagan's "Revolution" and the Paradox of Conservative Administrative Power

The real destroyer of liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.

An ideological challenge. Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory, dubbed the "Reagan Revolution," represented the first concerted ideological challenge to the New Deal's foundational principles in decades. Reagan, a long-standing conservative, explicitly advocated for limited government, arguing that "government is the problem." His rhetoric, often invoking Franklin Roosevelt's legacy to serve conservative ends, aimed to redefine the national purpose and roll back the expansive welfare state, promising a "Second American Revolution" rooted in individual freedom and self-reliance.

Party revitalization and presidential power. Unlike Nixon, Reagan actively sought to strengthen the Republican party, transforming it into a more national and programmatic force aligned with his conservative principles. He supported the RNC's efforts to expand fundraising and services, and his personal popularity helped shift partisan loyalties, bringing the GOP closer to parity with Democrats. However, Reagan's administration also continued and perfected the "administrative presidency" tactics of his predecessors, relying heavily on unilateral executive action and White House-centric policy-making to overcome congressional resistance, particularly in areas like "regulatory relief" and foreign policy (e.g., Iran-Contra).

The administrative paradox. The Reagan administration's pursuit of conservative objectives through administrative means created a paradox: it sought to reduce government intervention while simultaneously expanding and centralizing presidential control over the bureaucracy. This was evident in aggressive regulatory oversight by the OMB and the politicization of the Office of Personnel Management to ensure bureaucratic responsiveness. While aiming to dismantle the liberal state, Reagan's reliance on administrative power inadvertently reinforced the "administrative constitution," demonstrating that even a conservative president found it necessary to wield a powerful executive to achieve significant policy change, thus extending, rather than fundamentally challenging, the institutional legacy of liberal reforms.

8. Divided Government and the Administrative Constitution: A New Era of Institutional Combat

In the last decade of the 20th century, as in the first, prominent political scientists are calling for a new policy of governance in America.

Institutional combat. The late 20th century witnessed the entrenchment of "divided government," where the presidency and Congress were routinely controlled by opposing parties. This led not merely to institutional competition, but to "institutional combat," characterized by each branch actively seeking to weaken the other. Partisan conflict increasingly played out through investigations, indictments, and legislative oversight, with both Republicans and Democrats using government institutions to undermine their rivals' political and policy bases, often at the expense of policy responsibility and public trust.

The administrative constitution's grip. This era saw the full maturation of the "administrative constitution," where policy debates and conflicts largely centered on controlling the bureaucracy and the courts. Reagan's "economic bill of rights," for instance, aimed to enshrine fiscal conservatism through constitutional amendments, reflecting a desire to bypass the normal political process. Battles over judicial appointments, like the contentious Robert Bork nomination, became highly partisan, as both sides recognized the judiciary's critical role in overseeing the administrative state and defining programmatic rights.

Parties of administration. The New Deal's legacy transformed Democrats and Republicans into "parties of administration." With the polity settled into persistent divided government, Republicans became the party of administration through the executive branch, while Democrats became the party of administration through Congress. This shift meant that partisan efforts increasingly focused on managing the economy and society through administrative levers, rather than building electoral majorities around broad party platforms. This focus on bureaucratic control, while reflecting the realities of modern governance, further eroded the traditional role of parties in linking citizens to government.

9. The Erosion of Traditional Parties and the Crisis of American Citizenship

The vitality of the American Constitution has come from its flexiblity, from its extraordinary capacity to endure, even as it has, as Jefferson put it, ‘belonged to the living.’

Decline of party. The New Deal, ironically, initiated a long-term decline of traditional party organizations, a process accelerated by Democratic-sponsored reforms like primaries, public campaign financing, and the elimination of patronage. This "partisan project" aimed to replace traditional party politics with "enlightened administration," exalting the personal responsibility of the president and making collective partisan appeals less meaningful. Programs conceptualized as "rights" were deemed worthy of protection from electoral vagaries, further marginalizing parties as central actors in policy.

Plebiscitary presidency. The rise of the modern presidency, with its enhanced rhetorical and administrative capabilities, transformed the president into the leading instrument of popular rule, often bypassing parties to appeal directly to the electorate. This "plebiscitary presidency," while powerful, also became increasingly isolated and vulnerable, as it lacked the stable, grassroots support traditionally provided by robust party organizations. The 1992 election, with H. Ross Perot's independent candidacy, dramatically illustrated how presidential politics had become detached from party constraints, setting a new standard for direct, candidate-centered appeals.

Crisis of citizenship. The shift from party-centered to administrative and candidate-centered politics has had profound implications for American citizenship. Representative democracy, traditionally fostered by public deliberation in legislatures and local communities, has been enervated by a political process dominated by executive action and administrative agencies. The involvement of Congress and the courts in the "details of administration" further fragments governance, insulating state affairs from the understanding and control of ordinary citizens. This erosion of civic attachments and the focus on "rights" over collective purpose pose a pressing challenge to the vitality of American democracy as it approaches the 21st century.