A recurring debate within American politics concerns the power of the President; of which there are two contrasting schools of thought. One theory claims that the President has exceeded his constitutional powers. As such, he acts in a manner comparable to an imperial monarch. The second is that the Head of State is greatly curtailed in his actions by constitutional and political considerations. This article examines the imperial thesis in the field of foreign policy to the 44th President, Barack Obama.

1. Kevin Bloor, Head of Politics, Headington School, Oxford
King Obama?
A recurring debate within American of Schlesinger’s argument was in the realm of foreign policy. As he
succinctly argued at the time; “the imperial presidency [derived from]
politics concerns the power of the
the creation of foreign policy.”
President; of which there are two
contrasting schools of thought. One Barack Obama entered the White House with an expectation that
theory claims that the President has he would conduct foreign policy in a very different manner to his
predecessor. Whereas George W. Bush was a Christian fundamentalist
exceeded his constitutional powers. As
who believed in a vigorous pursuit of America’s interests, Obama
such, he acts in a manner comparable would in his own words be an “extreme pragmatist” committed to
to an imperial monarch. The second is change. He even made a high-profile visit to Europe in order to present
that the Head of State is greatly curtailed America in a more diplomatic light. However, his record in office
in his actions by constitutional and suggests that he has all too often been an imperial president in the
political considerations. This article field of foreign policy. There are three main arguments to consider,
the most significant of which is the first.
examines the imperial thesis in the field
of foreign policy to the 44th President, Drone attacks are conducted by the US military at the behest of the
Barack Obama. commander-in-chief. They occur with virtually no congressional
oversight and remarkably little media attention. This advanced level
The imperial presidency thesis derives from the noted historian and of technology allows the president to effectively choose in secret
political advisor Arthur Schlesinger (1973). He argued that successive who should be assassinated by US forces. Within three days of pledging
presidents had gained ever greater powers and thereby exceeded the to defend the Constitution, Obama decided to order drone strikes
proper constitutional powers of the office. The level of accountability against America’s enemies. Since then, Obama is believed to have
from the federal legislature, the judiciary and the media had been ordered such strikes on almost three hundred separate occasions.
gradually eclipsed by the powers of the president. The main thrust

2. Kevin Bloor, Head of Politics, Headington School, Oxford
King Obama?
(continued)
Secondly, Obama has singularly failed to close Guantanamo Bay
despite his stated pledge to do so during his first month in office.
Enemy combatants continue to be held without trial in constitutional
limbo after four years of an Obama-led administration. His refusal to
close it in the face of liberal critics from within his own party seems
to suggest that Obama is entirely comfortable with the imperial
apparatus inherited from the presidency of George W. Bush. He has
also failed to repeal the controversial Patriot Act, a piece of legislation
that greatly empowers the executive branch of government.
The third and final argument to support the imperial presidency
thesis concerns Osama bin Laden. President Obama ordered the
murder of America’s most wanted and made an issue of the fact
during the recent election campaign. The desirability or otherwise of
his order is not for discussion here. The point to consider is that the
murder of Osama bin Laden was an abuse of power and therefore
unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers did not want the president
ordering assassinations without any democratic control.
For all his giddy liberal rhetoric, Obama has governed in a manner
that can only be depicted as an imperial presidency in the context
of foreign policy. He has operated in a style consistent with other
previous occupants of the Oval Office, and his 2012 campaign
suggests he will continue to do so during his second term. For all the
right-wing media opposition to him, Obama governs like an imperial
Head of State despite the limitations created by the Constitution. In
the realm of foreign policy at least, he is surely an imperial president.
Questions
To what extent does the imperilled presidency thesis
apply to Obama?
What is the dual presidency thesis?
What differences (if any) exist between President Bush
and President Obama in regards to foreign policy?