This is a response to the op−ed "On the presidency, politics and foreign policy" that appeared in the Daily on Oct. 26. That piece was at once an articulate yet irrelevant critique of the United States' modern political system. While the author, Stephanos Karavas, made some idealistically important arguments, he failed to take into account the true nature of politics in its current form.
According to Karavas, the president's only duties are to strictly adhere to the Constitution and otherwise "submit his free will to that of the American public." Indeed, in affirming the presidential oath of office, presidents vow to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of their ability. This is not to say that anything not specifically enumerated by the Constitution should be ignored. On the contrary, the president has many responsibilities that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen.
It's clear that the world has drastically changed since 1789, and thus it would be counterproductive to simply ignore these changes and revert solely to past practices. I certainly admit that the principles of the Constitution themselves provide much guidance for all to live by and have allowed the United States to become the great nation it is today. However, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. … [W]ith the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."
Thus, according to Jefferson, the Constitution is a living document that should evolve with the progress of our society. This allows for changes that will inevitably occur over time, while still preserving its core principles. There are far more complications in the world now than there were in 1789, and as the world becomes increasingly interdependent, adaptation to such changes becomes more crucial. Since the president is constitutionally both the head of state and the head of government, it has become his job to be a leader in world affairs.
Karavas states that a presidential candidate should not express to the electorate his vision for a more perfect union, equating this to "snubbing" the Constitution. This is constitutionally invalid, according to the author. However, I believe that the purpose of a representative democracy is to have the people decide which candidate fits their own vision of a better, more prosperous nation. Outlining a platform and having voters accept or reject it is, in effect, keeping the "republic."
On the subject of political parties and their supposed corruption of the political culture of our country, the author highlights one of George Washington's most discussed admonitions. The argument that political parties only lead to an oligarchy of elitists, as Washington warns, is at least partially valid. However, Washington himself was an elite — born into a rich, slave−owning, tobacco−farming family that gave him the opportunity to become educated and thus successful on and off the battlefield, he was eventually propelled into the presidency. It would conceal the true nature of our government not to recognize that even since the time of the founding fathers, all our leaders have been of similarly high status. This is an unfortunate reality in a representative democracy.
Today's system is by no means the "antithesis" of what Washington envisioned it to be. Our country has continued down the path set out by Washington while evolving along the way. Chief Justice John Marshall, in interpreting the Constitution, asserted that it was "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." We must look at the world as it really is; combining principles championed in the past with the realities of the present will lead to a prosperous United States.
--
Joshua Youner is a freshman who has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at Joshua.Youner@tufts.edu.
