democratic autocracy. And to some extent they did. But thernelites were not stupid: they were careful to insist that the Watergaterncontrocrs was not about the presidency as such, butrnonl about Nixon the man. That is why it became necessary tornseparate the two. How? By keeping the focus on Nixon, makingrna dc il out of him, and reveling in the details of his personalrnlife, his difficulties with his mother, his supposed pathologies,rnetc.rnOf course, this did not entirely work. Americans took fromrnWitcrgate the lesson that Presidents will lie to vou. This shouldrnbe the first Icssoii of am* civics course, of course, and the firstrnrule of thumb in understanding the affairs of government. Butrnnotice that after Nixon died, he too was elevated to godlike status.rnNone other than Bill Clinton served as high priest of therncult of President-worship on that occasion. He did everythingrnbut sacrifice a white bull at the temple of the White House.rnThe presidency recovered most of its sacramental characterrnduring the Reagan vears. Hov wonderful, for the sake of ourrnliberties, that Clintoii has revived the great American traditionrnof scorning tyrants, hi some wavs, he is the best President arnfreedom-lover can hope for, more well-known for his privaternparts than his public policies. Of course, someday, Clinton toornwill ascend to the clouds, and enter the pantheon of the greatrnleaders of the free world.rnThe libraries are filled with shelf after shelf of treatises onrnthe American presidency. Save yourself some time, andrndo not bother with them. Virtually all tell the same hagiographicrnstory. Whether written by liberals or conservatives,rnthey serve up the identical Whiggish pap: the histor of thernpresidency is the storv of a great and glorious institution. It wasrnopposed early on, and viciously so, by the Antifcderalists, andrnlater, even more viciously, by Southern Confederates. But itrnhas been heroicalK’ championed by every respectable personrnsince the beginning of the Republic.rnThe office of the prcsidencs’, the conentional wisdom continues,rnhas changed not at all in substance, but has grown inrnstature, responsibility, and importance, to fulfill its unique missionrnon earth. As the duties of the office haxe grown, so has therngreatness of the men who inhabit it. Each stands on the shouldersrnof his forerunners, and, inspired bv their vision and decisiveness,rngoes on to make his own contribution to the ever-expandingrnmagisterium of presidential laws, executive orders, andrnnational security findings.rnWlien there is a low-ebb in the accumulation of power, it isrnseen as the fault of the individual and not the office. Thus thernso-called postage-stamp Presidents between Lincoln and Wilsonrnare to be faulted for not following the glorious example setrnby Abe. They had a vast reservoir of power, but were mysteriouslyrnreluctant to use it. Fortunately that situation was resolved,rnbv Wilson especially, and wc mo’ed onward and upwardrninto the light of the present day. And eery one of thesernbooks ends with the same conclusion: the United States presidencyrnhas served us well.rnThe hagiographers do admit one failing of the Americanrnprcsidenc}. It is almost too big an office for one man, and toornmuch a burden to bear. The American people have come tornexpect too much from the President. We are unrealistic tornthink that one man can do it all. But that is all the more reasonrnto respect and worship the man who agrees to take it on. andrnwhy all enlightened people must cut him some slack.rnThe analogy that comes to mind is the official history of thernPopes. In its infancy, the papacy was less formal, but its powerrnand position were never in question. As the years went on andrndoctrine developed, so too did the burdens of office. EachrnPope inherited the wisdom of his forbears, and led the Churchrninto fulfilling its mission more effectively. But let us be clearrnabout this. The Church has never claimed that the papacy wasrnthe product of human effort; its spiritual character is a consequencernof a divine, not human, act. And even the official historyrnadmits the struggles with anti-Popes and Borgia Popes (andrnsomeday Vatican II Popes).rnCatholics believe the institution was founded b Christ, andrnis guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Pope can only invoke thatrnguidance in the most narrow and rare circumstances. Otherwise,rnhe is all too fallible. And that is why, although allegcdh’rnan absolute monarch, he is actually bound by the rule of law.rnThe presidency is seemingly bound by law, but in practice itrncan do just about anything it pleases. It can order up troopsrnanywhere in the world, just as Clinton bragged in his acceptancernspeech at the Democratic conention. It can plow up arnreligious community in Texas and bury its members becausernthey got on somebody’s nerves at the Justice Department. Itrncan tap our phones, read our mail, watch our bank accounts,rnand tell us what we can and cannot eat, drink, and smoke.rnThe presidency can break up businesses, shut down airlines,rnoid drilling leases, bribe foreign heads of state or arrest themrnand try them in kangaroo courts, engage in germ warfare, firebombrncrops in Columbia, overthrow any government anywhere,rnerect tariffs, round up and discredit any public or privaternassembly it chooses, grab our guns, tax our incomes and our inheritances,rnsteal our land, centrally plan the national and woddrneconomy, and impose embargoes on anything anytime. Nornprince or Pope ever had this abilit)-.rnBut leave all that aside and consider this nightmare. Thernpresidency has the power to bring about a nuclear holocaustrnwith the push of a button. On his own initiative, the Presidentrncan destro’ the human race. One man can wipe out life onrnearth. Talk about playing God. This is a grotesque evil. Andrnthe White House claims it is not a tyranny? If the power to destroyrnthe entire world is not tyrannical, I do not know what is.rnWhy do we put up with this? Why do we allow it? Wh)- is thisrnpower not immediately stripped from him?rnWhat prevents fundamental challenge to this monstrousrnpower is precisely the quasi-religious trappings of the presidency,rnwhich we again had to suffer through last January. One manrnwho saw the religious significance of the presidency, and denouncedrnit in 1973, was—surprisingly enough—Michael Novak.rnHis study. Choosing Our King: Powerful Symbols in PresidentialrnPolitics, is one of the few dissenting books on thernsubject. It was reissued last year as—not surprisingly—ChoosingrnOur Presidents: Symbols of Political Leadership, with a newrnintroduction repudiating the best parts of the book.rnOf course, none of the conventional bilge accords with reality.rnThe United States President is the worst outgrowth of arnbadly flawed Constitution, imposed in a sort of coup againstrnthe Articles of Confederation. Even from the beginning, thernpresidency was accorded too much power. Indeed, an honestrnhistory would have to admit that the presidency has alv’aysrnIjeen an instrument of oppression, from the Whiskey Rebellionrnto the War on Tobacco.rnThe presidency has systematically stolen the liberty wonrnthrough the secession from Britain. From Jackson and Lincolnrnto McKinlcy and Roosevelt Junior, from Wilson and FDR torn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn