In his book, The Imperial Presidency, Arthur Schlesinger recounts the rise of the presidency as it grew into the imperial, powerful position that it is today. His writing reflects a belief that the presidency is becoming too powerful and that very few people are making a real effort to stop it. He analyzes the back and forth struggle for power between Congress and the
Presidency. Schlesinger breaks up the first half of the book chronologically. He begins by discussing the areas concerning the presidency where the founding fathers agreed and also the areas where they disagreed. He then goes on to analyze the rise of the imperial presidency through war and recovery, with emphasis on the events of the …show more content…
He reviews the covert actions throughout the history of the presidency, not merely the twentieth century. Although, as is the case with most other topic areas, he focuses on the modern presidents. The majority of these secret actions involved either the CIA or the military. Even though we are unaware that these actions are occurring, they have a big impact on both our lives and the imperial power of the office of the presidency.
Methodology & Evidence: Imperial Presidency
Schlesinger proves his thesis by following American politics from the founding fathers up through the Nixon administration. He recounts the major political actions taken by the presidents over the first two-hundred years of the United States. He shows how the presidency grew in power and stature by reviewing the specifics of the actions of the individual presidents. Through these actions, Schlesinger shows how the presidency gradually accumulated power.
He shows how the presidents wrestled power away from Congress bit by bit over time. The reactions of Congress are analyzed as well as the rest of Washington, and the general public. Schlesinger describes how the president gradually, over time, began to make more and more decisions on his own, leaving Congress in the dark. His incredible historical knowledge allows him to justify all his arguments. He provides more than sufficient specific information on what was really going on