Recently Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both offered their vision of the role of the President. In an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal Obama said that he isn’t running to be the “operating officer” of the U. S. Rather, his vision of the President’s role is “to set a vision of ‘here’s where the bureaucracy needs to go.’” Clinton, for her part, has criticized Obama’s understanding of the role of the chief executive. A Bloomberg story reported her as responding, “’It’s important that we have a president who understands that you have to run the government,’ Clinton, a senator from New York, said. Americans want a president ‘who is hands-on’ and does more than set goals.”

I think this is a fascinating debate. Sadly, due to the rapid pace of the primary season, it won’t receive that much discussion beyond some back and forth between the candidates. I believe positions on specific issues matter, but I’m beginning to think that a candidate’s philosophy and style of governing are even more important, especially within the Executive Branch. One of the most interesting and frustrating things about the government of the United States is its fluidity—both between the branches and within the branches themselves. Some of the matters are set in stone: the legislature writes laws, the executive executes and enforces those laws, and the judicial branch offers interpretation when the constitutionality of laws are in question. Because of the balance of powers, however, all the branches veer into each other’s territory from time to time, for better or for worse. Beyond that, because the Constitution does not explicitly determine every action each branch should or will take, each branch’s role is also open to interpretation.

Take for example, the interpretations of the Executive Branch offered by two of the largest figures of 19th century American politics, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. Jackson believed deeply in a powerful Executive Branch. Because he was the only official elected by the whole nation (within the suffrage parameters of the time), he saw himself as something as America’s representative. Jackson nearly dictated from his desk, wielding veto power without hesitancy whenever Congress did something that went against his vision for the country. Lincoln, on the other hand, believed that the president ought to submit to the will of Congress more often than not given that the legislators were to represent their districts and states. Lincoln rarely used the veto. He bristled at what he saw as Jackson’s hubris as President. The debate concern whose interpretation of the role of the Executive Branch is correct—Jackson’s strong Executive, or Lincoln’s Whiggish interpretation that Congress writes laws and the President signs them—still continues.

Bringing it back home, I wonder what people think about the current Clinton-Obama debate. Or rather, I would like to take the candidates out of the picture for the moment. My question is, without regard to what candidate holds what position, do you think that the role of the U. S. President is to set a vision for the bureaucracy or to run the government? Perhaps you may think this is a false dichotomy, but offer your opinions why.

(By the way, Frontline made an interesting piece on Vice President Dick Cheney’s interpretation of a strong Executive Branch that I think is worth watching.)