What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power
The Bush years have justifiably given rise to fears of a new Imperial Presidency. Yet despite the controversy surrounding the administration's expansive claims of executive power, both Left and Right agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility. The Imperial Presidency is the price we seem to be willingly and dangerously agreeable to pay the office the focus of our national hopes and dreams. Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency argues that the Presidency needs to be reined in, its powers checked and supervised, and its wartime authority put back under the oversight of the Congress and the courts. Only then will we begin to return the Presidency to its proper constitutionally limited role.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2008
22 people are currently reading
429 people want to read
About the author
Gene Healy
9 books6 followersGene Healy's newest book is The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. As senior editor at the Cato Institute, he is responsible for reviewing and editing Cato policy studies and other publications. His research interests include federalism, criminal justice, constitutional war powers, civil liberties, and the war on terror. From 1994 to 1996, Healy served as managing editor of Cato's Regulation magazine. He returned to Cato in October 2001 after law school and two years of private practice as an attorney in the commercial litigation group at the law firm Howrey Simon Arnold & White. Healy is a contributing editor to Liberty magazine, as well as the editor of Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything. His writing has been published in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, and elsewhere. Healy holds a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
October 27, 2025
Op een gekke manier erg geruststellend. Van Johnson die zijn Johnson rondzwaait naar een journalist tot Kennedy die de belastingdienst achter zijn politieke tegenstanders aan stuurt, om over Nixon en Dubya Bush nog maar te zwijgen.
De Amerikaanse president wordt steeds meer gezien als almachtige leider en de facto koning die verantwoordelijk is voor het oplossen van alle problemen in het land; elke president erft de toegenomen macht van de voorganger en heeft er belang bij dit verder uit te bouwen om aan die wens van het volk te voldoen. Het komt ook niet slecht uit voor Congresleden, want die kunnen de uitvoerende macht de schuld geven.
In dezen is Trump dus vooral uniek door de samenloop van banaliteit en moderniteit met enorme enablers in de andere twee takken van de Trias Politica. Dat biedt ergens nog hoop mocht het tij ooit keren...
Dit werk is een stevig relaas dat de tand des tijds heeft doorstaan, hoewel ik me afvraag wat er eventueel weggelaten of onderbelicht is. Het Congres krijgt er flink van langs namelijk en ik vraag me af wat er nog meer speelt in de partijpolitieke arena.
De Amerikaanse president wordt steeds meer gezien als almachtige leider en de facto koning die verantwoordelijk is voor het oplossen van alle problemen in het land; elke president erft de toegenomen macht van de voorganger en heeft er belang bij dit verder uit te bouwen om aan die wens van het volk te voldoen. Het komt ook niet slecht uit voor Congresleden, want die kunnen de uitvoerende macht de schuld geven.
In dezen is Trump dus vooral uniek door de samenloop van banaliteit en moderniteit met enorme enablers in de andere twee takken van de Trias Politica. Dat biedt ergens nog hoop mocht het tij ooit keren...
Dit werk is een stevig relaas dat de tand des tijds heeft doorstaan, hoewel ik me afvraag wat er eventueel weggelaten of onderbelicht is. Het Congres krijgt er flink van langs namelijk en ik vraag me af wat er nog meer speelt in de partijpolitieke arena.
February 15, 2016
Every four years, men and women with permanently-fixed smiles assure us that they will end corruption in Washington, get the economy moving, and end our trouble overseas, if only we will elect them President. The claims are bold – who could budge the vast federal bureaucracy or find a solution to the hornet’s nest that is the middle east? Yet a third of the American public seems willing to believe these and greater claims, from across the political spectrum. Throughout the 20th century, the presidency has taken on great challenges, willfully or at the urging of the public, and gathered around itself the power to take on those challenges -- or try to. In The Cult of the Presidency, David Healy argues that not only this is a significant departure from the Constitutionally-sanctioned purpose of the president, but such centralization constitutes a malignant force. Not only is investing such power and hope in one man dangerous, but the breadth of ambitious and responsibilities we heap upon the president's shoulders is self-defeating.
Healy begins with the Constitution and revisits the intentions of the Founders through the Federalist papers. The republic existed in its Congress, which was granted the bulk of powers, including levying taxes and declaring war. What no one wanted was an elected king, even if Alexander Hamilton did bat around the idea that the president might serve for life. There were fears, however, that Congress might amass too much power, and thus the executive's responsibility would be to not just carry out Congress' will, but refuse to do so if said will violated the Constitution. The presidential oath is made not to care for and advance the needs of The People, but to protect the Constitution. For most of the 19th century, executives held to their constitutional limits; Abraham Lincoln was an obvious exception, serving as he did in extraordinary circumstances. But most of the 19th century executives were forgettable men; how many Americans could even identify men like Franklin, Garfield, and Hayes as presidents? The opening of the 20th century, however, revealed a very different presidency. Wealth and power were increasing, and as money and science transformed the nation, they created a distinctly modern mindset. It declared that the power to create the future was in its hands; no institution was spared from novel attempts at completely restructuring them, sometimes in response to the new dangers of the modern era. The presidency, too, empowered not just by wealth but by the ideology of progress, escaped its constitutional bounds to become new creature. Although lapses in presidential restraint had already happened during the administrations of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson was the architect of a new order. An academic who believed the Constitution had outlived its effective use, saw it as the president’s duty to conduct the Will of the People into action. The president alone was voted in by the whole of the people; his was the voice that should guide the nation into the future, and the technology of the day allowed he and his successors to project their voice and exercise their will more ably, constitutional limits be damned. (And to the prisons with dissent!)
The world wars did great damage to the American political constitution, in focusing the public's attention through the radio onto the leader -- the leader, who towered in imaginations, who could view the global conflict and distill all the information, creating a battle plan. As the twentieth century progressed, the ambitions of the presidency became ever more ambitious. The president was not merely spearheading a war against a particular foreign power; he was the Leader of the Free World, casting a watchful eye over the entire globe to save it from the spectre of communism. At home, ambitions were no less awe-inspiring, as Nixon, Johnson, Reagan and others sought to rid American society of substance abuse and poverty, companions of the human race from the word go. Now, when a shooting erupts, or a hurricane washes over a city, the president is expected to arrive and say soothing things, like daddy reassuring frightened children. Because one of the few active roles allotted to him by the Constitution is that of Commander-in-Chief, presidential ambition has been matched by growing and inappropriate use of the military, both abroad and at home. Although the Vietnam war and Nixon's resignation did tremendous damage to the esteem of the presidency, "Superman Returned" after 9/11, when George W. Bush became the defiant face of the nation toward terrorism. Whatever he did, he was doing it to Make America Safe, and he didn't need a permission slip to do it -- L'état est George.
The problem with all this power accruing to the presidency isn't just that it is merely unconstitutional, or manifestly dangerous in the abuses that have already occurred and continue to occur. (There's no shortage: the freewheeling ability to call anyone a terrorist and make them disappear, tried only in secret by the military; drone assassinations without explicit congressional sanction, even of American citizens; widespread data collection, and it goes on and on.) There are limits in nature itself that ensure that the presidency is never as effective as it desires. American foreign policy in the middle east, for instance, seems to be nothing more than a self-perpetuating stream of debacles. We meddle in Iran, and made an enemy; we used Iraq to attack them, and armed a madman; we attacked the madman, and created ISIS. Nearer to home, the president may be the object of all our hopes and fears, but he can't stop hurricanes and the economy is not a machine to be manipulated. Like nature, it fights back. Even when things seem to be going merrily, it's of little avail: the public only cares what fresh triumphs Caesar has wrought. If the economy tanks right before an election, woe to the incumbent party. All this assumes the president is making competent decisions to begin with, when throughout the 20th century the office-holder has become increasingly isolated from reality -- surrounded by the party faithful and underlings who are awed by the office or have no incentive to tell him he's erring. So much power and adulation is not only dangerous to governance, but to the mental health of the occupant, held in godlike awe and expectation to fix all the problems, and offer or at least project strength and comfort when a crisis erupts.
What's the solution? Well, there isn't one, really. Congress can impose limits on the president, as it did with the War Powers act, but it has to be willing to hold him accountable. These days, Congress' chief function seems to be to pay lobbyists and run for office. Ultimately, reigning in the cult may lie in waking up the cultists, the American people, who instead of being Egyptians genuflecting before Pharoah, should return to their 18th century roots of viewing with deep suspicion any man presuming to order their lives about. The current slate of men and women offers little hope in that regard, however, as the adulating masses cheering on Trump and Sanders obviously believe that one man can overcome reality itself. There may be hope, however, in the fact that two figures with no real affiliation or loyalty to their party have populist support; it is a signal that Americans are weary of business as usual and might respond to third-party approaches.
(Happy president's day.)
Related:
Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, Ivan Eland.
The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government, F.H. Buckley. Argues that an over-responsible president or prime minister is a problem not only for the United States, but for the United Kingdom and Canada as well. I read this last July and will read it again this year in hopes of giving it a proper review. Cult of the Presidency was read last January and again last July.
Healy begins with the Constitution and revisits the intentions of the Founders through the Federalist papers. The republic existed in its Congress, which was granted the bulk of powers, including levying taxes and declaring war. What no one wanted was an elected king, even if Alexander Hamilton did bat around the idea that the president might serve for life. There were fears, however, that Congress might amass too much power, and thus the executive's responsibility would be to not just carry out Congress' will, but refuse to do so if said will violated the Constitution. The presidential oath is made not to care for and advance the needs of The People, but to protect the Constitution. For most of the 19th century, executives held to their constitutional limits; Abraham Lincoln was an obvious exception, serving as he did in extraordinary circumstances. But most of the 19th century executives were forgettable men; how many Americans could even identify men like Franklin, Garfield, and Hayes as presidents? The opening of the 20th century, however, revealed a very different presidency. Wealth and power were increasing, and as money and science transformed the nation, they created a distinctly modern mindset. It declared that the power to create the future was in its hands; no institution was spared from novel attempts at completely restructuring them, sometimes in response to the new dangers of the modern era. The presidency, too, empowered not just by wealth but by the ideology of progress, escaped its constitutional bounds to become new creature. Although lapses in presidential restraint had already happened during the administrations of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson was the architect of a new order. An academic who believed the Constitution had outlived its effective use, saw it as the president’s duty to conduct the Will of the People into action. The president alone was voted in by the whole of the people; his was the voice that should guide the nation into the future, and the technology of the day allowed he and his successors to project their voice and exercise their will more ably, constitutional limits be damned. (And to the prisons with dissent!)
The world wars did great damage to the American political constitution, in focusing the public's attention through the radio onto the leader -- the leader, who towered in imaginations, who could view the global conflict and distill all the information, creating a battle plan. As the twentieth century progressed, the ambitions of the presidency became ever more ambitious. The president was not merely spearheading a war against a particular foreign power; he was the Leader of the Free World, casting a watchful eye over the entire globe to save it from the spectre of communism. At home, ambitions were no less awe-inspiring, as Nixon, Johnson, Reagan and others sought to rid American society of substance abuse and poverty, companions of the human race from the word go. Now, when a shooting erupts, or a hurricane washes over a city, the president is expected to arrive and say soothing things, like daddy reassuring frightened children. Because one of the few active roles allotted to him by the Constitution is that of Commander-in-Chief, presidential ambition has been matched by growing and inappropriate use of the military, both abroad and at home. Although the Vietnam war and Nixon's resignation did tremendous damage to the esteem of the presidency, "Superman Returned" after 9/11, when George W. Bush became the defiant face of the nation toward terrorism. Whatever he did, he was doing it to Make America Safe, and he didn't need a permission slip to do it -- L'état est George.
The problem with all this power accruing to the presidency isn't just that it is merely unconstitutional, or manifestly dangerous in the abuses that have already occurred and continue to occur. (There's no shortage: the freewheeling ability to call anyone a terrorist and make them disappear, tried only in secret by the military; drone assassinations without explicit congressional sanction, even of American citizens; widespread data collection, and it goes on and on.) There are limits in nature itself that ensure that the presidency is never as effective as it desires. American foreign policy in the middle east, for instance, seems to be nothing more than a self-perpetuating stream of debacles. We meddle in Iran, and made an enemy; we used Iraq to attack them, and armed a madman; we attacked the madman, and created ISIS. Nearer to home, the president may be the object of all our hopes and fears, but he can't stop hurricanes and the economy is not a machine to be manipulated. Like nature, it fights back. Even when things seem to be going merrily, it's of little avail: the public only cares what fresh triumphs Caesar has wrought. If the economy tanks right before an election, woe to the incumbent party. All this assumes the president is making competent decisions to begin with, when throughout the 20th century the office-holder has become increasingly isolated from reality -- surrounded by the party faithful and underlings who are awed by the office or have no incentive to tell him he's erring. So much power and adulation is not only dangerous to governance, but to the mental health of the occupant, held in godlike awe and expectation to fix all the problems, and offer or at least project strength and comfort when a crisis erupts.
What's the solution? Well, there isn't one, really. Congress can impose limits on the president, as it did with the War Powers act, but it has to be willing to hold him accountable. These days, Congress' chief function seems to be to pay lobbyists and run for office. Ultimately, reigning in the cult may lie in waking up the cultists, the American people, who instead of being Egyptians genuflecting before Pharoah, should return to their 18th century roots of viewing with deep suspicion any man presuming to order their lives about. The current slate of men and women offers little hope in that regard, however, as the adulating masses cheering on Trump and Sanders obviously believe that one man can overcome reality itself. There may be hope, however, in the fact that two figures with no real affiliation or loyalty to their party have populist support; it is a signal that Americans are weary of business as usual and might respond to third-party approaches.
(Happy president's day.)
Related:
Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, Ivan Eland.
The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government, F.H. Buckley. Argues that an over-responsible president or prime minister is a problem not only for the United States, but for the United Kingdom and Canada as well. I read this last July and will read it again this year in hopes of giving it a proper review. Cult of the Presidency was read last January and again last July.
December 13, 2024
Very good. Ironically both alarming and sobering at the same time. Despite being published over 15 years ago, it’s hard to think of a more timely thesis and message.
January 21, 2022
Here's a quick quiz on American presidents:
(1) Which president ordered the relocation of about 100,000 people living in the United States, most of them citizens, because of the ethnic group they belonged to?
(2) Which president asked for and signed legislation that sent people to jail for as long as twenty years for criticizing the government?
(3) Which president declared that "the president is answerable to the nation, but not to the courts," and "when the president does it ["it" meaning anything] then it is not illegal"?
(4) Which president had the federal government seize control of the nation's steel mills and railroads, and threatened to draft striking steel workers into the army?
(5) Which president claimed the authority to have American citizens arrested on American soil and have them held indefinitely without charges or due process?
The answers: (1) Franklin D. Roosevelt. (2) Woodrow Wilson. (3) Richard M. Nixon. (4) Harry S Truman. (5) George W. Bush.
(I wrote this review in 2009, before Trump was president.)
These are a few of the presidential outrages during the past hundred years which Gene Healy discusses in The Cult of the Presidency. At least the first two of these presidents are widely admired. Indeed, he notes, the more presidents abuse their power, the more historians admire them for it.
In the nineteenth century and up to Wilson's time, the president was a low-profile figure by comparison. There were exceptions, most notably Lincoln, who shut down newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. But things began to change with Theodore Roosevelt ("I should welcome almost any war"). Then Wilson came to office, bringing the US into a deadly European war and committing perhaps the worst violations of civil liberties in the nation's history. He was a social Darwinist and attacked the system of checks and balances: "The makers of the Constitution constructed the federal government upon a theory of checks and balances which was meant to limit the operation of each part and allow to no single part or organ of it a dominating force; but no government can be successfully conducted upon so mechanical a theory."
There was some relief after Wilson. Healy notes that bad as Harding's reputation is (and he was certainly a failure as a manager), he undid the bulk of Wilson's wartime incursions against Americans' freedom. But from Roosevelt on, things have gotten steadily worse, except for a period of public backlash in response to Nixon's crimes.
Curiously, Healy skips over Hoover with barely a word. Taft gets more coverage. Yet Hoover initiated most of the disastrous economic interventions by which he and Franklin Roosevelt turned the economic crisis of 1929 into almost two decades of depression.
By the time he gets to George W. Bush, the story will be familiar to most well-informed readers. Healy observes that Congress has grown increasingly deferent to the president over the decades. This perspective makes it a bit less surprising that Congress caved in repeatedly to Bush's tantrums, even as his popularity collapsed.
Healy sees the "romanticization of the presidency" as a principal factor in presidents' being able to grab so much power for themselves. This does seem to be true of most historians, who like big, powerful figures to give drama to their writings. But for the general public, I think that a short-sighted attempt to be practical is more to blame. Members of Congress get elected and re-elected (and re-elected and ...) by delivering money and favors to their contributors and lobbyists. Attention to national concerns doesn't keep them in office, and they want the president to sign their pork-barrel bills. Congress has more in common, functionally, with a den of thieves than a body of statesmen, and that kind of group needs a strong boss.'
The book offers a limited measure of hope. In some ways, people are more willing to criticize the president today than people of previous generations were. It's very unlikely Wilson's Espionage Act would get much support today. Still, unless there's a basic change in the way Americans think, it's unlikely presidential power will be reined in soon. Certainly Obama's demands that Congress pass his "stimulus" bill without taking the time to read it and his talking as if he knows how to run all the businesses in the country show there's been no broad withdrawal from imperial claims.
As with any book that covers a lot of ground, it's necessary to be cautious about the historical details cited. Healy cites Wilson as saying that "God ordained that I should be the next President of the United States" as established fact, though there was only one person who claimed to hear him say that. He says that "New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin delayed ordering mandatory evacuation until after Katrina hit New Orleans," but that isn't true.
The errors aren't critical, though, and The Cult of the Presidency offers a lot of insight into and perspective on the way the power of the White House has grown beyond all reasonable bounds.
This review was originally posted to my website in 2009, in a different format.
(1) Which president ordered the relocation of about 100,000 people living in the United States, most of them citizens, because of the ethnic group they belonged to?
(2) Which president asked for and signed legislation that sent people to jail for as long as twenty years for criticizing the government?
(3) Which president declared that "the president is answerable to the nation, but not to the courts," and "when the president does it ["it" meaning anything] then it is not illegal"?
(4) Which president had the federal government seize control of the nation's steel mills and railroads, and threatened to draft striking steel workers into the army?
(5) Which president claimed the authority to have American citizens arrested on American soil and have them held indefinitely without charges or due process?
The answers: (1) Franklin D. Roosevelt. (2) Woodrow Wilson. (3) Richard M. Nixon. (4) Harry S Truman. (5) George W. Bush.
(I wrote this review in 2009, before Trump was president.)
These are a few of the presidential outrages during the past hundred years which Gene Healy discusses in The Cult of the Presidency. At least the first two of these presidents are widely admired. Indeed, he notes, the more presidents abuse their power, the more historians admire them for it.
In the nineteenth century and up to Wilson's time, the president was a low-profile figure by comparison. There were exceptions, most notably Lincoln, who shut down newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. But things began to change with Theodore Roosevelt ("I should welcome almost any war"). Then Wilson came to office, bringing the US into a deadly European war and committing perhaps the worst violations of civil liberties in the nation's history. He was a social Darwinist and attacked the system of checks and balances: "The makers of the Constitution constructed the federal government upon a theory of checks and balances which was meant to limit the operation of each part and allow to no single part or organ of it a dominating force; but no government can be successfully conducted upon so mechanical a theory."
There was some relief after Wilson. Healy notes that bad as Harding's reputation is (and he was certainly a failure as a manager), he undid the bulk of Wilson's wartime incursions against Americans' freedom. But from Roosevelt on, things have gotten steadily worse, except for a period of public backlash in response to Nixon's crimes.
Curiously, Healy skips over Hoover with barely a word. Taft gets more coverage. Yet Hoover initiated most of the disastrous economic interventions by which he and Franklin Roosevelt turned the economic crisis of 1929 into almost two decades of depression.
By the time he gets to George W. Bush, the story will be familiar to most well-informed readers. Healy observes that Congress has grown increasingly deferent to the president over the decades. This perspective makes it a bit less surprising that Congress caved in repeatedly to Bush's tantrums, even as his popularity collapsed.
Healy sees the "romanticization of the presidency" as a principal factor in presidents' being able to grab so much power for themselves. This does seem to be true of most historians, who like big, powerful figures to give drama to their writings. But for the general public, I think that a short-sighted attempt to be practical is more to blame. Members of Congress get elected and re-elected (and re-elected and ...) by delivering money and favors to their contributors and lobbyists. Attention to national concerns doesn't keep them in office, and they want the president to sign their pork-barrel bills. Congress has more in common, functionally, with a den of thieves than a body of statesmen, and that kind of group needs a strong boss.'
The book offers a limited measure of hope. In some ways, people are more willing to criticize the president today than people of previous generations were. It's very unlikely Wilson's Espionage Act would get much support today. Still, unless there's a basic change in the way Americans think, it's unlikely presidential power will be reined in soon. Certainly Obama's demands that Congress pass his "stimulus" bill without taking the time to read it and his talking as if he knows how to run all the businesses in the country show there's been no broad withdrawal from imperial claims.
As with any book that covers a lot of ground, it's necessary to be cautious about the historical details cited. Healy cites Wilson as saying that "God ordained that I should be the next President of the United States" as established fact, though there was only one person who claimed to hear him say that. He says that "New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin delayed ordering mandatory evacuation until after Katrina hit New Orleans," but that isn't true.
The errors aren't critical, though, and The Cult of the Presidency offers a lot of insight into and perspective on the way the power of the White House has grown beyond all reasonable bounds.
This review was originally posted to my website in 2009, in a different format.
Read
August 16, 2023This is not a politically based book of conservatives against liberals. The author details the growing power of the presidency. The Constitution is clear about the powers of the executive and the legislative branchs. The Congress has permitted the president to assume powers that are reserved for the congress. For example the last time the Congress voted to go to war was on December 8, after Pearl Harbor and then again on December 11 they voted to go to war with Germany. Korea, Viet Nam, the Afghan, and Iraq actions were not the result of Congress declaring war. They were primarily presidential led actions.
The authors style is a little bland, repetative, and sometimes confusing. But his research is very thorough and deals with the president and congress doing the same things over and over which resulted in infringements on citizen constitutional freedoms. The president does not deserve all the blame (or credit?) because much of presidential over reaching was approved or ignored by congress. The book is even handed with both Republicans and Democrats getting blamed.
It is alarming that "We the People" have lost control of our government and violations of the constitution are rationalized away by politicians who never allow a disaster to go to waste. This was my "bathroom" book and managed to hold my attention in 5-10 minute sittings, but was not a page turner. An interesting topic, well researched, blandly written and without any remedy for "we the people" The author blames everyone for the problem. Unless this is an area of real interest I would shelve this book with the other "read someday" books on the lower shelves.
The authors style is a little bland, repetative, and sometimes confusing. But his research is very thorough and deals with the president and congress doing the same things over and over which resulted in infringements on citizen constitutional freedoms. The president does not deserve all the blame (or credit?) because much of presidential over reaching was approved or ignored by congress. The book is even handed with both Republicans and Democrats getting blamed.
It is alarming that "We the People" have lost control of our government and violations of the constitution are rationalized away by politicians who never allow a disaster to go to waste. This was my "bathroom" book and managed to hold my attention in 5-10 minute sittings, but was not a page turner. An interesting topic, well researched, blandly written and without any remedy for "we the people" The author blames everyone for the problem. Unless this is an area of real interest I would shelve this book with the other "read someday" books on the lower shelves.
March 19, 2012
When one of my favorite liberals, Ezra Klein, and one of my favorite conservatives, Andrew Bacevich, recommend a book by a libertarian, well, it just might be worth reading. So I did. Healy documents how presidents in the 20th and now 21st centuries have rarely allowed opportunities to accrue power pass. The powers they have accumulated far surpass what the Constitution enumerates for them. Where the Constitution limits presidents to presiding rather than ruling, presidential elections now resemble something like appointments of not-so-limited monarchs to four year terms.
Explaining how this anti-constitutional state of affairs came about makes up the bulk of the book. Presidents from both parties took advantage of times of war and economic crises to argue that only they, if they had enough power, could figure out how to solve the problems the country faced. Healy attributes this attitude to the Great Man view of history in the 19th century, in which the hopes of a nation are embodied in a single individual. Adapted to America, this view of history proclaims that only the president represents the true will of the people, and only the president can act for all the people because only he is wrapped in the cloak of American values. And so Congress gradually handed over its powers to the presidency, and where Congress would not grant them more powers, presidents have assumed them with only feeble protests from Congress and occasional rollbacks in the courts. Furthermore, the American people have generally approved of this usurpation. Witness the liberties Americans were willing to give up following 9/11.
Presidents are no long simply national presiders with veto power and acting as commanders-in-chiefs as the Constitution prescribes. A president today is also expected to be consoler in chief, chief manager of the economy, and chief legislator as well. He is the solver of all national problems, and quite a few local ones as well. And whereas the party not holding the presidency usually objects when non-approved (opposite party) presidents expand presidential prerogatives, when that party gets hold of the presidency not for them to initiate decreases in presidential power. Oh no, not that. What's needed instead is maintaining and further expanding presidential power. George Bush II, both with the overwhelming blessing of Congress and sometimes in spite of Congress, managed to collect more power for himself regardless of the level of his popularity. We've seen this pattern again with Obama continuing some of George II's military excesses and his expanding presidential power in violation of the 14th amendment when he declared the he has the power to assassinate American citizens he (not the courts or Congress) determines as enemies of the state, a violation of the 14th amendment.
Healy's presidential models are not Woodrow Wilson, the most self-conscious supporter of expanding presidential power on the Great Man model, or the Roosevelts, and certainly not George II. His models of presidential restraint are Harding and Coolidge, both who understood the proper constitutional role of the president. Healy argues for a return to the limited role such presidents once served and which is prescribed in the Constitution.
And yet....
Healy is certainly correct to object to the imperial role that presidents now play in American politics and society. He points out that every presidency must end in failure because no one office or man can possibly fulfill the hopes, dreams, aspirations, tasks, and expectations placed on it. Every president will be a disappointment even though his power is practically unconstrained by Congress and barely so by the courts.
And yet....
We have good reason to be concerned with the enormous imperialistic power in the grasp of one individual. Healy acknowledges that Congress will never be able to limit the power of the presidency to its original level. Yet that is what he desires because, as a libertarian, he yearns for a smaller government that doesn't make it its business to regulate economic activities or provide emotional and financial aid in the event of natural catastrophes or act as the global policeman or rescue corrupt banks and bankrupt auto manufacturers.
And yet....
What Healy fails to consider is that our constitutional order requires a complete revamping. A nation as large and diverse as the United States, striding dangerously on the world stage as a stumbling colossus, cannot shrink into a minimalist or even smaller state. It's too late for that. Healy admits that the Constitution as written can no longer function. The law of the land is a super constitution that little resembles the original. That constitution worked as intended in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is inadequate for the 21st, a view Healy tacitly acknowledges without taking the next logical step of calling for a new constitution. Regardless of how one feels about the size of the federal government and especially the reach of the presidency, the federal government will not shrink very much; modern life is simply too complex. The best way to make that power more accountable to citizens is to change its structure.
The danger, of course, is that in the process of constructing such a constitution we will end up with something worse. Really? How much worse can it get? That's a possible risk, but we may also end up with a form of government fairer and more accountable than what we have now. What would it look like? I don't know, but I suspect that it would be a more parliamentary form. What form it would ultimately take would be up to us.
Explaining how this anti-constitutional state of affairs came about makes up the bulk of the book. Presidents from both parties took advantage of times of war and economic crises to argue that only they, if they had enough power, could figure out how to solve the problems the country faced. Healy attributes this attitude to the Great Man view of history in the 19th century, in which the hopes of a nation are embodied in a single individual. Adapted to America, this view of history proclaims that only the president represents the true will of the people, and only the president can act for all the people because only he is wrapped in the cloak of American values. And so Congress gradually handed over its powers to the presidency, and where Congress would not grant them more powers, presidents have assumed them with only feeble protests from Congress and occasional rollbacks in the courts. Furthermore, the American people have generally approved of this usurpation. Witness the liberties Americans were willing to give up following 9/11.
Presidents are no long simply national presiders with veto power and acting as commanders-in-chiefs as the Constitution prescribes. A president today is also expected to be consoler in chief, chief manager of the economy, and chief legislator as well. He is the solver of all national problems, and quite a few local ones as well. And whereas the party not holding the presidency usually objects when non-approved (opposite party) presidents expand presidential prerogatives, when that party gets hold of the presidency not for them to initiate decreases in presidential power. Oh no, not that. What's needed instead is maintaining and further expanding presidential power. George Bush II, both with the overwhelming blessing of Congress and sometimes in spite of Congress, managed to collect more power for himself regardless of the level of his popularity. We've seen this pattern again with Obama continuing some of George II's military excesses and his expanding presidential power in violation of the 14th amendment when he declared the he has the power to assassinate American citizens he (not the courts or Congress) determines as enemies of the state, a violation of the 14th amendment.
Healy's presidential models are not Woodrow Wilson, the most self-conscious supporter of expanding presidential power on the Great Man model, or the Roosevelts, and certainly not George II. His models of presidential restraint are Harding and Coolidge, both who understood the proper constitutional role of the president. Healy argues for a return to the limited role such presidents once served and which is prescribed in the Constitution.
And yet....
Healy is certainly correct to object to the imperial role that presidents now play in American politics and society. He points out that every presidency must end in failure because no one office or man can possibly fulfill the hopes, dreams, aspirations, tasks, and expectations placed on it. Every president will be a disappointment even though his power is practically unconstrained by Congress and barely so by the courts.
And yet....
We have good reason to be concerned with the enormous imperialistic power in the grasp of one individual. Healy acknowledges that Congress will never be able to limit the power of the presidency to its original level. Yet that is what he desires because, as a libertarian, he yearns for a smaller government that doesn't make it its business to regulate economic activities or provide emotional and financial aid in the event of natural catastrophes or act as the global policeman or rescue corrupt banks and bankrupt auto manufacturers.
And yet....
What Healy fails to consider is that our constitutional order requires a complete revamping. A nation as large and diverse as the United States, striding dangerously on the world stage as a stumbling colossus, cannot shrink into a minimalist or even smaller state. It's too late for that. Healy admits that the Constitution as written can no longer function. The law of the land is a super constitution that little resembles the original. That constitution worked as intended in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is inadequate for the 21st, a view Healy tacitly acknowledges without taking the next logical step of calling for a new constitution. Regardless of how one feels about the size of the federal government and especially the reach of the presidency, the federal government will not shrink very much; modern life is simply too complex. The best way to make that power more accountable to citizens is to change its structure.
The danger, of course, is that in the process of constructing such a constitution we will end up with something worse. Really? How much worse can it get? That's a possible risk, but we may also end up with a form of government fairer and more accountable than what we have now. What would it look like? I don't know, but I suspect that it would be a more parliamentary form. What form it would ultimately take would be up to us.
December 11, 2020
This book is far more relevant today than when it was written. In a time of "crisis" and executive orders, perhaps if more courageous people understood the history of the presidency we would be in a different world.
June 5, 2017
If the current president concerns you. Or the last one. Or the one before that...... read this only if you want to be disturbed that the chances are they won't be getting any better.
July 3, 2017
Excellent book showing how the office of the Presidency accumulated power and how the persons inhabiting that office abused those powers.
March 3, 2025
Excellent perspective of the true role of the President as laid out in the constitution as how the modern office has gone beyond that to the danger of us all.
June 8, 2025
Excellent insight into how we turned the president into a monarch. If anything, Healy’s ‘s message is far more urgent today than he ever could have imagined when he wrote this book.
June 2, 2009
What a timely book in the age of Bush and Obama. How has the US gotten so far away from the Constitutional and limited government that it was originally founded? It would seem that the people of the US have cast aside many of its Constitutional protections from government in order to be protected and nursed by the government. At the same time, we have come to place now whereby we have given sole responsibility for our collective well being in the hands of one person and we demand that this individual solve practically all of our ills. This book examines the growth of the office of the Presidency by examining the history of the country, the various men to hold the Presidency and an in-depth examination at its previous President (George W. Bush). Despite the fact that the Presidency was established as a very limited office charged with executing the laws of the land that were established by Congress, the current incarnation seems better defined as part National Savior and Protector of the People. George Bush was just the latest of many men who pushed the bounds of the executive office beyond any and almost all Constitutional limits and he certainly is an easy target. We ask so much from those that hold this office that it is literally an impossible task. Anyone interested in governance, political history or who just want to find out how the US got to where it is today should read this book.
July 25, 2013
Interesting Quotes:
"John F. Kennedy...[and his] attorney general, brother Bobby, ordered wiretaps on New York Times and Newsweek reporters, along with various congressmen and lobbyists...During the 1964 contest, the Johnson administration also used the CIA to keep Goldwater campaign officials under surveillance and to procure advance copies of the candidate's speeches. And at Johnson's request, the FBI bugged Goldwater's campaign plane...[T]here was some truth to the conservative complain that Nixon was deposed for attempting what JFK and LBJ got away with with some regularity--that is, using federal intelligence agencies against the president's political enemies. But the 'everybody does it' defense...merely pointed to the systemic erosion of checks and balances and the abuses it made possible."
-Gene Healy, the Cult of the Presidency
"Many of the region's National Guardsmen were unavailable to help out at home [with regards to Hurricane Katrina] because they'd been called up to help democratize the Middle East. When Katrina hit, there were 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guard troops deployed in Iraq, among them 3,700 members of Louisiana's 256th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, who took with them high-water vehicles and other equipment that could have been put to better use in New Orleans. The Guard personnel at home had only one satellite phone for the entire Mississippi Gulf Coats; the other phones were in Iraq."
-Gene Healy, the Cult of the Presidency
"John F. Kennedy...[and his] attorney general, brother Bobby, ordered wiretaps on New York Times and Newsweek reporters, along with various congressmen and lobbyists...During the 1964 contest, the Johnson administration also used the CIA to keep Goldwater campaign officials under surveillance and to procure advance copies of the candidate's speeches. And at Johnson's request, the FBI bugged Goldwater's campaign plane...[T]here was some truth to the conservative complain that Nixon was deposed for attempting what JFK and LBJ got away with with some regularity--that is, using federal intelligence agencies against the president's political enemies. But the 'everybody does it' defense...merely pointed to the systemic erosion of checks and balances and the abuses it made possible."
-Gene Healy, the Cult of the Presidency
"Many of the region's National Guardsmen were unavailable to help out at home [with regards to Hurricane Katrina] because they'd been called up to help democratize the Middle East. When Katrina hit, there were 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guard troops deployed in Iraq, among them 3,700 members of Louisiana's 256th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, who took with them high-water vehicles and other equipment that could have been put to better use in New Orleans. The Guard personnel at home had only one satellite phone for the entire Mississippi Gulf Coats; the other phones were in Iraq."
-Gene Healy, the Cult of the Presidency
August 10, 2016
"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof." //President John Adams
The Cult of the Presidency ends with the Bush administration but touches some on the very beginning of the Obama administration. As we move into another election it couldn't have been a better time to read. Gene Healy discusses the history of the presidency, the evolution from George Washington's hands-off approach to George W. Bush's "the president is not bound by any law" approach and how the people, academics etc see the presidents obligations and restrictions.
This book is a great read even if you have no idea about anything when it comes to American politics. Gene takes his time to lay the foundation and he goes high in the roof of advancement.
Healy gives us a perspective regarding the dangers of an all power full president, the elective monarch, but he doesn't put all the blame on the presidents who accumulates the power. He lays blame where blame is due, on a Congress that wan'ts to shift responsibility, on a population that wants the president to do more and promise more during the campaign and a president that is held accountable for the economy, safety, health etc in which the founders never intended for them in the first place.
Read this book, it's great and at the same time its scary due to the massive amounts of power that the presidency has garnered.
The Cult of the Presidency ends with the Bush administration but touches some on the very beginning of the Obama administration. As we move into another election it couldn't have been a better time to read. Gene Healy discusses the history of the presidency, the evolution from George Washington's hands-off approach to George W. Bush's "the president is not bound by any law" approach and how the people, academics etc see the presidents obligations and restrictions.
This book is a great read even if you have no idea about anything when it comes to American politics. Gene takes his time to lay the foundation and he goes high in the roof of advancement.
Healy gives us a perspective regarding the dangers of an all power full president, the elective monarch, but he doesn't put all the blame on the presidents who accumulates the power. He lays blame where blame is due, on a Congress that wan'ts to shift responsibility, on a population that wants the president to do more and promise more during the campaign and a president that is held accountable for the economy, safety, health etc in which the founders never intended for them in the first place.
Read this book, it's great and at the same time its scary due to the massive amounts of power that the presidency has garnered.
July 15, 2008
George Will called it the "most significant public policy book this year," and he's not far wrong. For friends and fans of limited government, Mr. Healy's argument is time honored: the presidency as it stands today is unconstitutional, and it's our own damn fault.
What Mr. Healy adds is a sardonic, and incisive post-holed history of the office. He breaks the presidency down into a few periods, and combines it with public opinion sentiments of the age. The result is an alarming history of the failure of the institutional strictures put in place at the Founding. At writing, the American public universally distrusted government, and wanted it to do more. Congress, that fine body of crouchers, has consistently yielded to the president the authority to do whatever he damn well pleases. The public, ever vigilant, has cried out for Him to do more. In response, the president has accrued ever more power to Himself, leaving Congress and the public powerless, more or less, to stop Him.
What Mr. Healy adds is a sardonic, and incisive post-holed history of the office. He breaks the presidency down into a few periods, and combines it with public opinion sentiments of the age. The result is an alarming history of the failure of the institutional strictures put in place at the Founding. At writing, the American public universally distrusted government, and wanted it to do more. Congress, that fine body of crouchers, has consistently yielded to the president the authority to do whatever he damn well pleases. The public, ever vigilant, has cried out for Him to do more. In response, the president has accrued ever more power to Himself, leaving Congress and the public powerless, more or less, to stop Him.
February 9, 2010
The tone of the books maintains a fairly strong skepticism but to avoid becoming to dour Gene Healy always manages a thin veil of optimism that some how wit and wisdom will eventually prevail.
I prodigiously covered the page edge with Post-It flags in a wide range of colors for future reference.
The final chapter ends on a much more critical tone than many Good Reads reviewers give him credit for but for all that Gene Healy isn't nearly as damning as I might like. He sees hope where I cannot, maybe that is a good thing; maybe not.
The Articles of Confederation without a unitary executive was the preferred covenant of governance. The Constitution actually contains little that is worth "reforming". Historical narrative of this era (without a POTUS) was disappointingly absent in Mr. Healy's critique.
I prodigiously covered the page edge with Post-It flags in a wide range of colors for future reference.
The final chapter ends on a much more critical tone than many Good Reads reviewers give him credit for but for all that Gene Healy isn't nearly as damning as I might like. He sees hope where I cannot, maybe that is a good thing; maybe not.
The Articles of Confederation without a unitary executive was the preferred covenant of governance. The Constitution actually contains little that is worth "reforming". Historical narrative of this era (without a POTUS) was disappointingly absent in Mr. Healy's critique.
Read
August 1, 2019Highly recommended attack on excessive Presidential power that should be read by every American. Healy suggests that the cynicism about government that marked American life in the 1970s was not something that needed to be "healed" but rather a healthy trend. As someone whose sociopolitical views were formed in that era I really couldn't agree more. Healy also poses a legitimate, too rarely asked question: What kind of person would want to be President? (Answer: the very type of person who'll wreak havoc on the US and the rest of the world given the tremendous power that comes with the office, especially since few who work for a President will ever tell him when they think he's wrong.) Good history and a compelling analysis of our current plight. Healy is associated with the right-wing/libertarian Cato Institute but don't let that stop you from checking this out.
May 26, 2010
Gene Healy is a very clever yet straightforward writer and did very good research for this book which does a good job explaining why we need a less powerful chief executive.
However, he devotes to much space to talking about foreign policy and wars and almost no space to domestic affairs- which are much more important to most American voters.
His "Cult" in the book consists primarily of scholars and writers for relatively intellectual outlets like The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, etc.- outlets which many voters haven't even heard of.
But overall it's a convincing argument against having an American President who has the power to launch wars at anytime and elected on the promise to change the world.
However, he devotes to much space to talking about foreign policy and wars and almost no space to domestic affairs- which are much more important to most American voters.
His "Cult" in the book consists primarily of scholars and writers for relatively intellectual outlets like The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, etc.- outlets which many voters haven't even heard of.
But overall it's a convincing argument against having an American President who has the power to launch wars at anytime and elected on the promise to change the world.
July 15, 2012
I found this book to be a fair treatment on "how we got where we are at"; worshiping at the altar of an all powerful Executive Branch that promises us largesse at every corner. Ironic for a country founded on an intense suspicion of the "monarchical" principle of power. I think the author does a wonderful job of itemizing the amass of Executive power abuses through historical presidential administrations, but wished he would have spent a bit more time identifying the remedies to such abuses. All-in-all, highly recommended for those frustrated with the lack of objective coverage on the issue by think tanks like Politico, Realclearpolitics and others.
November 5, 2010
I give the book 4 stars for content and message but only 2.5 stars for style. Sections felt redundant and many themes were endlessly repeated. I think it would have been twice as good with 1/3 less verbiage.
Still, Gene Healy is saying something that few others are. The President is not — and should not be — our national savior and chief guide. I long for the return of modest Presidents like Coolidge, Harding, and Harrison. Maybe after reading this, you will too.
Still, Gene Healy is saying something that few others are. The President is not — and should not be — our national savior and chief guide. I long for the return of modest Presidents like Coolidge, Harding, and Harrison. Maybe after reading this, you will too.
June 2, 2012
A useful and informative history of the Presidency. Healy makes the case that the office of the Presidency has been drifting from its intended role - that of an unglamorous executive with no lawmaking power - to its current role over the course of decades. Presidents may arrogate broad new powers in the face of crises, but these tend to be powers that Congress had largely ceded to them in the years prior.
Formatting in the Kindle edition is a little weird, but still readable.
Formatting in the Kindle edition is a little weird, but still readable.
March 3, 2013
We live in a society where the concept of a strong, heroic presidency is the norm; most of us can't conceive of anything else. Gene Healy of the Cato Institute shows that this hasn't always been the case, and that we'd be better served by having a presidency at least somewhat bound by its original constitutional restraints.
"Cult" is an extremely entertaining read that will make you better-informed without boring you. I'd recommend this for anyone with a remote interest in American history.
"Cult" is an extremely entertaining read that will make you better-informed without boring you. I'd recommend this for anyone with a remote interest in American history.
January 29, 2016
Do you know what the President does? Are you sure? Gene Healy thinks most Americans don't truly understand the powers and limits--or, at least, the intended limits--of the office, and that this misunderstanding/ignorance is one of the biggest factors in the erosion of our politics over the last couple decades. And he makes a compelling case. The Cliff's Notes of this one should be required reading for anyone who ever plans to vote in a presidential election.
June 17, 2012
Excellent read, highlighting how we've managed to convert the office of the President far beyond it's original design, both through expansion led by a thirst for power AND a desire by the public for the office to be responsible for far too much.
March 13, 2016
I found the concept of The Cult of the Presidency to be more appealing than its application in this book. I was hoping for a theory or framework to be explored rather than another book on the historical/political effects of the US foreign and domestic applications of power.
Read
July 17, 2008Very interesting book but hard to get through. Gene Healy is too smart for me.
March 18, 2009
An extremely detailed and persuasively argued history of snowballing presidential power.
January 13, 2010
Libertarian take on how and why executive power has expanded since the Founding Fathers and why it's not a good thing.
September 24, 2012
Approaches the historical aspects as Executive Branch's grab for power as drifted from the Constitution
July 12, 2014
Definitely worth the read. Any book about the the prospects for - and necessity of - executive restraint is going to be discouraging, but it's an important issue.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews