Truman and Kennedy, from Nixon and Reagan to Bush andrnClinton, it has been the means by which our rights to liberty,rnproperts, and self-government have been suppressed. I canrncount on one hand the actions of Presidents that actually favoredrnthe true American cause, meaning liberty. The overwhelmingrnhistory of the presidency is a tale of overthrownrnrights and liberties, and the erection of despotism in their stead.rnEach President has tended to be worse than the last, especiallvrnin this century. And lately, in terms of the powers they assumedrnand the dictates they imposed, Kennedv was worse thanrnEisenhower, Johnson was worse than Kennedy, Nixon wasrnworse than Johnson, Carter was worse than Nixon, and Reaganrn—who doubled the national budget and permanently entrenchedrnthe warfare state—was worse than Carter. The samernis true of Bush and Clinton. Every budget is bigger and thernpowers exercised more egregious. Each new brutal actionrnbreaks another taboo, and establishes a new precedent thatrngi cs the next occupant of the White House more leeway.rnLooking back through American histor’, we can see the fewrnexceptions to this rule. Washington made an eloquent FarewellrnAddress, laying out the proper American trade and foreign policy.rnJefferson’s Revolution of 1800 was a great thing. But was itrnreally a freer country after his term than before? That is a toughrncase to make. Andrew Jackson abolished the central bank,rnbut his real legacy was democratic centralism and weakenedrnstates’ rights.rnAndrew Johnson loosened the military dictatorship fastenedrnon the South after it was conquered. But it is not hard to makernthe countrv freer when it had become totalitarian under thernpre ions President’s rule. Of course, Lincoln’s bloodv autocracyrnsurvies as the model of presidential leadership. JamesrnBuchanan made a great statement on behalf of the right of revolution.rnGrant restored the gold standard. Harding denouncedrnAmerican imperialism in Haiti. But overall, my favorite Presidentrnis William Henry Harrison. He keeled over shortly afterrnhis inauguration.rnThere have been four huge surveys taken of historians’ viewsrnon the Presidents: in 1948,1962, 1970, and 1983. Histonansrnwere asked to rank Presidents as Great, Near Great, Average,rnBelow Aerage, and Failure. In exerv case, number one is Lincoln,rnthe real father of the present nation. I lis term was a modelrnof eery despot’s dream: spending mone’ without congressionalrnapproval, declaring martial law, arbitrarily arrestingrnthousands and holding them without trial, suppressing freernspeech and the free press, handing out lucrative war contractsrnto his cronies, raising taxes, inflating the currency, and killingrnhundreds of thousands for the crime of desiring self-government.rnThese are just the sort of actions historians love.rnThe runner-up in these competitions is FDR, and Wilsonrnand Jackson are alwa’s in the top five. The bottom two in everyrncase arc Grant and Harding. None bothered to rate WilliamrnHenry I Larrison.rnWhat does greatness in the presidency mean? It means wagingrnwar, crushing liberties, imposing socialism, issuing dictates,rnbrowbeating and ignoring Congress, appointing despoticrnjudges, expanding the domestic and global empire, and generallyrntrying his best to be an all-round enemy of freedom. Itrnmeans saying with Lincoln, that “I have a right to take any measurernwhich may best subdue the enemy.”rnThe key to winning the respect of historians is to do thesernthings. All aspirants to this vile office know this. It is what theyrnseek. They long for crisis and power, to be bullies in the pulpit,rnto be the dictators thev are in their hearts. They want, at allrncosts, to avoid the fate of being another “postage-stamp President.”rnMadison said no man with power deserves to be trusted.rnNeither should we trust any man who seeks the power that thernpresidency offers.rnAccordingh, it is all well and good that conserxatives havernworked to discredit the current occupant of the White House.rnCall him a philander, a cheat, and a double dealer if you want.rnCall him a tvrant, too. But we must go further. The answer tornrestoring republican freedom has nothing to do with replacingrnClinton with Lott or Kemp or Forbes or even Buchanan. Thernstructure of the presidency, and the religious aura that surroundsrnit, must be destroyed. The man is merely a passing occupantrnof the Hoh’ Chair of St. Abraham. It is the chair itselfrnthat must be reduced to kindling.rnIt was never the intention of the majorit of Frainers to creaternthe mess we have, of course. After the War for Independence,rnthe Articles of Confederation had no Chief Executive.rnIts decisions were made by a five-member Confederation.rnThe Confederation had no power to tax. All its decisions requiredrnthe agreement of nine of the 13 states. That is the wayrnit should be.rnMost of the delegates to the unfortunate Philadelphia conventionrnhated executive power. They had severely restrictedrnthe governors of their states, after their bitter experience withrnthe colonial go’ernors. The new governors had no veto, and nornpower oer the legislatures. Forrest McDonald reports that onernquarter of the delegates to the convention wanted a plural executive,rnbased loosely on the Articles model. But those whornplanned the convention—including Morris, Washington, andrnHamilton—wanted a single, strong executive, and they outmaneuveredrnthe various strains of Antifederalists.rnBut listen to how they did it. The people of the several statesrnand their representatives were suspicious that Hamilton wantedrnto create a monarchy. Now, there is much mythology surroundingrnthis point. It is not that the Antifederalists and thernpopular will opposed some guy strutting around in a crown. Itrnwas not monarchy as such they opposed, but the power the kingrnexercised. When they said they did not want a monarch, theyrnmeant they did not want a King George, they did not want arntyrant, a despot, an autocrat, an executive. It was the despoticrnend they feared, not the royal means.rnIndeed, formally, the Constitution gives few powers to thernPresident, and few duties, most of them subject to approval byrnthe legislature. The most important provision regarding thernpresidency is that the holder of the office can be impeached. Itrnwas to be a threat constantly hanging over his head. It was,rnmost Frainers thought, to be threatened often and used againstrnany President who dared gather more power unto himself thanrnthe Constitution prescribed.rnIn one famous outburst, Hamilton was forced to defendrnhimself against the charge that the new office of the presidencyrnwas a monarchy in disguise. He explained the difference betweenrna monarch and a President. But as you read this, thinkrnabout the present executive. Ask yourself whether he resemblesrnthe thing Hamilton claimed to have created in the office of thernpresidency, or whether we have the tyrant he claimed to be repudiating.rnAmong other points, Hamilton said in Federalist 69:rnThe President of the United States would be liable to bernimpeached, tried, and, upon conviction . . . removedrnOCTOBER 1997/29rnrnrn