close
Welcome to JBS.org
Login or create your account below.
| McCain’s Temper and Presidential Powers |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Gary Benoit |
| Friday, 25 April 2008 11:57 |
Concerns about Senator John McCain’s reputedly bad temper continue to dog the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. When these concerns are expressed in their most intense form, the question is even raised as to whether McCain’s temper disqualifies him to be president. How bad is McCain’s temper? That question was recently examined by the Washington Post in a major-length article entitled “McCain: A Question of Temperament.” The article quotes Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has experienced McCain’s temper firsthand, as saying that the thought of John McCain being president “sends a good chill down my spine.” The article also quotes former Republican Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who has also experienced McCain’s temper firsthand, as saying: “His [McCain’s] temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.”However, John McCain has dismissed the article, saying: “One thing I’ve learned over time is that stories get better and better over time.” And Fox News reported that Bob Smith said the references to him in the Post story are exaggerated. Is McCain’s temper a serious problem? Or are the concerns about his temper overblown? Undoubtedly those questions will continue to pop up in media reports. But the media publicity I’ve seen thus far about McCain’s temper has overlooked a far greater concern that the media should be raising. Namely: should any presidential candidate — not just John McCain but Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and even Ron Paul — be entrusted with all of the powers and presumed powers modern-day presidents exercise? Indeed, should George W. Bush be entrusted with those powers? Should recent presidents such as Bill Clinton have been entrusted with those powers? It is indeed chilling to contemplate how a president with an out-of-control temper might wield his powers or presumed powers, particularly with regard to unleashing the dogs of war. Imagine, for instance, a president’s anger clouding his judgment to such an extent that he launches an offensive war against a country that did not attack us, simply because he was mad at that nation or its leader. But, wait! George W. Bush did launch an offensive war against Iraq, even though Iraq had not attacked us. Yet Bush does not have McCain’s reputation for an out-of-control temper. A president’s temperament is not inconsequential. But far more consequential are the extra-constitutional powers that presidents have been allowed to exercise that they should not be exercising. Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has it right when he says that the president does not have the power to take the nation into a war without a congressional declaration of war. On this point, Paul is echoing the position of the Founding Fathers, who in drafting the Constitution assigned to Congress and Congress alone the power to declare war. The Founding Fathers recognized that no one person should be able to decide when to go to war. Unfortunately, that’s not the case with McCain, Clinton, or Obama. They all presume that the president decides when to go to war. So does George W. Bush; so did other post-WWII presidents. And the media gives all of them a free pass on this fundamental fallacy. If the presumed presidential powers exercised by modern-day presidents were drastically reduced to their constitutional size, then a president’s temperament would not be as big a concern as it is now. And that’s what the media should be including in their reports about McCain’s reputedly bad temper.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)
 Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
| Last Updated on Monday, 28 April 2008 07:40 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments