On: Presidential authority – Obama, Romney and bin Laden

Conservatives have created more than a few paradoxes in their haphazard effort to blame President Obama for the state of the country. As evidence, consider his odd presence in two political portmanteaus: Obamacare and the Obama-Economy.

Expunge from your mind, reader, that the Affordable Health Care Act was introduced by Rep. John Dingle (D-MI), shepherded through the House by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and caressed through the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Erase from your thoughts that, since 1921 and the passage of the Budget and Accounting Act, while the President is required to submit a budget, the proverbial “power of the purse” remains almost exclusively with Congress. (The Constitution gives the President no authority to appropriate funds.)

In making their case for election to Washington, conservatives seem unbothered that their cries for strict constitutionalism is inconsistent with the notion that government policy is traceable to one man. Nor do they seem cross that their insistence on strong American federalism does not allow for overlooking the responsibilities of a 535-member legislative body and 50 state electorates – the latter having much more say on the state of the economy than the President.

And yet conservatives only seem eager to stomach more contradictions. Their most recent is President Obama’s supposed “inappropriate politicization” of the demise of Osama bin Laden. In a sobering campaign video released last week, President Clinton made the case that President Obama “took the harder and more honorable path” in the pursuit of bin Laden. The inevitable question which followed: “Would Mitt Romney have done the same?”

Mr. Romney was quick to affirm (what else?) that he would, a comment hastily adjoined by (what else?) the complaint that “politicizing it was... an inappropriate use” of bin Laden’s death.

Well. Mr. Romney has, on numerous occasions, exhibited a near admirable ability to shift political views and maintain elected office. But here, historical headwinds come not merely from his own comments, but from his party’s as well.

Consider: From Vietnam onward, Republicans have, with great success, brandished their chops as the country’s defenders. President Reagan added billions of dollars to a declining defense budget during the Cold War, while George H.W. Bush ultimately saw that war’s “thaw.”

Indeed, Republicans are the “guns” in America’s never ending “guns and butter” debate. Still, the right’s past campaigns - which continually brought attention to these successes - leave Mr. Romney’s charge more than a little empty.

"... the direction of war..."

If conservatives wish to find fault with anyone, they might commence with Alexander Hamilton. It was he who, in Federalist 74, “in relation to the command of the national forces”, wrote:

“Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority."

In essence, what the President lacks in domestic governance he gains in foreign preeminence. While at home he maintains some de jure authority (the veto being the most prominent, yet even this can be overturned), the vast majority of his power is de facto – i.e. he has claim to both prestige and the bully pulpit. 

Meanwhile, across sovereign borders, the President is the nation’s chief diplomat, having the ability to both negotiate treaties and command the military. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for presidential candidates to brandish their qualifications and beliefs on the matter. 

This isn’t to say President Obama is faultless. Critics have labeled him hypocritical for criticizing Hillary Clinton’s 3 AM phone call advertisement during the 2008 Democratic primary. It smacks, they say, of political opportunism.

This is unquestionably true. However, the fault lies with the Senator of 2008, not the President of 2012. Just as then-Senator Clinton’s advertisement was fair game – and just as Republican campaigning has rarely come into question –  President Obama’s (arguably more substantive) bin Laden video should be granted legitimacy.

Republicans, it's still your move.