UPDATE and scripts

Hi, everyone! First of all, I want to thank you for your continued patronage. I can't make this series without a dedicated audience, and your support is always appreciated. 

Second, I should probably tell you that YouTube has not been sharing my videos through recommendations all that much lately. My analytics show that nearly everyone who watched my last few videos were already subscribers, unlike previous videos in which the split was more mixed. This happens. The algorithm decides, for one reason or another, that a channel is not what YouTube wants to promote. I'm hopeful that things will once again turn around, but it does not look good at the moment. 

This is not unique to my channel at all. This has been happening to a lot of "mid-tier" YouTubers over the past month or two. Feel free to tell your friends about my show because it looks like I'm back to word-of-mouth being the primary way my channel grows.

Third, I want everyone to know that work on the big The West Wing project continues. In February, I said it would be done in about a year, and that is still the target. February, March(?) 2022. In the meantime, of course, there will be regular episodes. Nothing is changing. I just have a new project to do while working on my normal 15 - 30 minute videos.

That's all for now. Here are some scripts to previous episodes.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART V

I have been emotionally exhausted every day of this year, not only witnessing the everything of it all but writing about the everything of it all. With that in mind, I hope you will all forgive me, because this week, to purge the unbelievable heaviness from my body, I deliver to you what is certain to be my least important, least political, and most inconsequential hot take ever: Friday the 13thPart V is not that bad. The stakes have never been lower. Among slasher fans and Friday the 13th fans specifically, Part V: A New Beginning is often considered a failure. This is in no small part because mass murderer and hockey enthusiastic Jason Voorhees is not the killer. Jason died in Part IV, the increasingly inaccurate Final Chapter. The killer turns out to be a paramedic named Roy whose mind was warped when he saw the mangled body of his son but not so warped that he couldn't come up with the most convoluted way to try to get away with his killing spree: dressing up like a serial killer who everyone knows is already dead. This is not a good plan. This is a bad plan. In the end, he is pushed on to some spikes – you know, common yard spikes? – and it's like “Joinks, Scoob. It was old Mr. Wilkins this whole time.” [sighs] What makes a “good” Friday the 13th movie anyway? Arguably, none of them are great movies, except maybe Part VI, but there is a kind of low-budget, cheesy charm that makes the series perfect for movie night with friends.

So, judging by Friday the 13th's baseline quality and not overall movie quality, is Part V any good? What do people want when they see a Friday the 13th movie? Well, historically, fans of the series wanted to see kills. There is a lot of admittedly anecdotal evidence from people who were in the theaters in the 80's that suggests people were counting the kills and cheering for Jason, not his victims. This has lasted to this day with “kill count” YouTube videos that focus on these scenes more than any others. Some of the most famous Jason kills across the franchise are bending his victim's body, slamming his victim against a tree, the 3D eye pop, the Mortal Kombat style uppercut and a few others. Part V suffers from the censorship of the time. There was a lot of pressure to make the Friday the 13thmovies less graphic. The director was sent notes about what they had to cut in order for it to make an R rating. Part V was infamously cut to pieces and showed less blood. You can barely see any blood in the dream sequence introduction, the two early Roy victims who are inexplicably 1950's greasers are killed in a generic, Part I kind of way, the pervert gets a bloodless axe to the dome, the peeping tom in the forest is unenthusiastically stabbed without any gore, even Roy falling on the spikes looks a little tame. In terms of kills, the thing that allegedly drove fans to the theaters, there are only a handful of “creative” death scenes.

AUDIO 2

One in which Roy crushes a teenager's head by twisting a strap the wrong way, and another in which Demon is trapped in an outhouse and dies in his own stink. The best action in the movie is when Tommy Jarvis hits the death valley driver through a table. The only thing remarkable about this film's kills is that the count is pretty high compared to previous Fridays. There are 22 kills in this movie whereas Part I only had 10, Part II only had 9, Part III had 12, and Part IV had 14. The problem with such a high kill count is that the kills don't have much impact. There is a kill approximately every four minutes in the movie. It's not only overkill, but since so many characters are introduced almost immediately before being killed, their deaths have no resonance. Thus, if you're not the kind of horror fan who is only there is watch elaborate kills and instead want some slow, creeping dread, you're going to come away disappointed. It's an unsatisfying horror movie whether you're there for the gore or there for the atmosphere. Going outside the slasher fan community, just as an admirer of cinema, it's also a hard movie to defend because it had to be edited in a blender, and much of it comes across so disjointed, with scenes so detached from the main thread of the plot, victims invented to up the kill count who have nothing to do with...anything. So, why do I kinda like this movie?

I can't defend it as a piece of well-structured cinema because it's not, and I can't even defend it as cohesive because it's really not, and even by slasher standards, it's incredibly sleazy – almost uncomfortably so. Friday the 13thPart V doesn't work that well as a movie, but it works as a series of unrelated vignettes. Skits with goofy characters. While Part VI is best known for being a comedic meta-commentary on slasher movies, Part V really starts the comedy trend in Friday the 13th. With the possible exception of Tommy, none of the characters are particularly well-developed, but so many characters are just incredibly silly and memorable anyway, and their brief existences in the movie, barely having any impact of the overall plot, give their introductions and rapid conclusions this vignette feel. Example. The aforementioned Demon is Reggie's older brother. Reggie's grandfather doesn't want him hanging around Demon, but he never comes across as dangerous or irresponsible. Maybe it's just the charismatic portrayal by Miguel Nunez, maybe it's his genuine affection for his younger brother, or maybe it's because he's always offering people free food. Whatever it is, he comes across as this bad boy with a heart of gold. He and his girlfriend Anita sing lovingly to each other while he's in the outhouse, and then Fake Jason has to come around and ruin it by killing them both. Demon is referenced briefly in one prior scene but has nothing to do with the overall plot of the movie. Roy kills both Demon and Anita without any motivation.

AUDIO 3

Neither of them were related to Roy's son's death in any way. They didn't even live in the halfway house where it happened. This is also true of the greaser scene. They have even less to do with the death of Roy's son. They are two random 1950's enthusiasts, presumably ready for a Grease theme party at a 50's diner, who run afoul of Roy for the crime of car trouble. “And now we take you live to two nameless greasers, already in progress.” Then there's Ethel and her son Junior who are clearly the same age. Roy mows them down too for no particular reason. Watching the actors' performances, Friday the 13thPart V feels like a movie where everyone knew what kind of movie they were making and just hammed it up. Why is Violet doing the robot? Is that even the robot? Why is she dancing like this? And why is it oddly compelling? Like, the entire movie is just a bunch of people practically winking at the camera. This isn't mere speculation either. Interviews with the actors have revealed that a lot of the memorable, funny stuff from the movie was improvised. Ethel's dialogue was ad-libbed. The song from the dance, the “It's showtime” random nudity, and bunch of other stuff was cooked up by the actors on the set. Everyone from Joey... [clip] ...to Vic... [clip] to the creepy paramedic [clip]. It's such a bizarre collection of purposefully goofy performances – all of which feel inexplicable and disjointed and unrelated to each other.

Friday the 13thPart V doesn't work as a movie, but it does work as a series of scenes to watch individually on YouTube. Maybe this is still not a convincing argument if the absence of Jason leaves too big of a void in this movie. I understand that some Friday fans will dismiss this entry into the franchise because it doesn't have Jason, but that's where they're wrong. It has a Fake Jason, a Ghost Jason, and by the end, a New Jason. That's three Jasons. That's two more Jasons than usual. If anything, there is too much Jason in this movie, not too little. There. That settles that. Very important video this week, right? Is anyone else tired? Just...very tired right now?

MANIACS AND PSYCHOS

In the 1960 film Psycho, after Marion Crane and the shower scene, after the private investigator falls down the stairs, after the light bulb, and the body and all the other iconic scenes of the horror classic, the movie grinds to a complete halt. For five and a half minutes, a psychiatrist explains to the surviving characters – as well as the audience – what just happened. The psychiatrist explains the underlying psychological disorder relevant to the film, dissociative disorder, even though he never uses that term – nor does he use the more antiquated term, multiple personality disorder. The psychiatrist fills in the blanks in case the audience could not figure out why Norman was doing what he was doing, and he delivers  an unseen backstory that is not so much revealed as it is spilled all over the epilogue. The psychiatrist also goes out of his way to alleviate any panicking heterosexuals by saying there is nothing more to Norman dressing up as a woman than wanting to give his mother life. This scene receives the most criticism out of everything in the film because these details and explanations could have arrived more naturally within the bulk of the narrative instead of tacked on in this epilogue. In an otherwise excellent movie and one of the all-time greats, Psycho concludes with this clumsy, awkward exposition after the fact. But then again, horror often portrays mental illness and mental health clumsily and awkwardly.

The fiction of horror movies often reflect both real world fears of and real world ignorance about mental illness. These portrayals then further solidify these fears and this ignorance in the popular consciousness – a kind of ouroboros of misinformation in which the audience does not know whether it is influencing these films or the films are influencing the audience. Let's close our eyes and think of words like “psycho” and “maniac” and let the images flood your mind. Now, let's open our eyes. There is a good chance that many of us thought of something like this, or this, or this. Even if we have no conscious disdain for the mentally ill, we are not immune to the propaganda of popular culture. “Psycho” comes from the psychological term “psychopathy” and “maniac” comes from “mania” – a term closely associated (although not always) with bipolar disorder. Despite manic episodes generally being non-violent and individuals with bipolar disorder also being non-violent, “maniac” is nonetheless a pejorative phrase used to describe a violent, presumably mentally ill individual. So much so that there is a series of horror films called Maniac. The 1986 short film, Maniac 2: Mr Robbie, is actually a remake of the 1973 film, The Psychopath. In other words, these terms are used interchangeably and often to the detriment of those suffering from mental illness.

AUDIO 2

According to John Goodman, author of The Horror of Stigma, “Horror films will often include stigmatizing representations of psychosis and mental health care environments. ... Misinformation is often communicated. Due to these stigmatizing representations, people experiencing mental ill health may be rejected by the public.” In addition to being rejected, those with mental illness who feel that their malady has been stigmatized may choose not to seek help for fear of this rejection or out of personal shame. In other words, because of this stigma, mental illness can go untreated, causing greater, unnecessary suffering. Popular media has the ability to inform and educate the public consciousness. Accepting this, popular media must also be acknowledged as having the ability to misinform and miseducate the public. Horror naturally has us identify with the victims of these “maniacs and psychos” which creates the intended framing of the perpetrator as “the other” – and if this other is portrayed as mentally ill, this in turn frames the mentally ill as dangerous. Fictional narratives may not have an “obligation” to be accurate, but their messaging and stigmatization is nonetheless effective. These inaccuracies can present falsehoods and encourage stigmatization of the mentally ill.

Thereal world stigma surrounding mental illness can be seen playing out in the fiction of horror movies, and this stigma can be interrogated through these portrayals. Here are many, many examples. In the aforementioned film Psycho, the title alone tells us a lot about how the popular consciousness uses mental illness as shorthand for danger. This is a horror film, and it only requires one word to let the audience know what genre it is. A movie called Psycho is not going to be a drama or a comedy, because we have been conditioned to believe mental illness is a source of horror, that the mentally ill are inherently dangerous – “crazy” people who are lurking in the shadows with no motivation needed in their “broken” minds. As the Psycho film series progresses, Norman Bates' characterization changes. In Psycho II, Bates is released from a mental institution, having successfully plead insanity over twenty years prior. Bates reintegrates into society, earning employment and some form of social life. Throughout the film, Bates believes that whatever treatment he received during his institutionalization may not have been effective, as he begins to hear a familiar voice urging him to regress. In truth, he is being gaslighted by the family of one of his victims who believes that Bates is incapable of rejoining society safely.

AUDIO 3

This melodrama is nonetheless a fairly accurate microcosm of much of society's view of the mentally ill, that they are incurably, ultimately dangerous, and not worthy of the same rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us. This may seem like an exaggeration of society's view, as one would rarely hear someone confess to that specific criteria and belief, but much in the same way that someone does not explicitly confess to being a racist, their attitudes, language and smaller aggressions betray their worldview. Psycho II is far more sympathetic to Bates than the original film, but this sympathy for the mentally ill becomes muddled in the final scenes. Bates once again murders a woman who may or may not be his actual biological mother, and uses her as his alter ego, repeating the cycle he began many years ago. This ending suggests that Bates is incurable and that everything leading up to this moment of the film about his reformation can be dismissed. In Psycho III, Bates continues his rampage, sometimes hounded by people who suspect him and sometimes protected by those he has won over. The problem is that while the film sympathizes with Bates, it also shows that those who accept him were naive. The ready-made counter to this would be someone saying “Well, would you want to work at the same diner as Norman Bates?” but that is not the point.

The point is that the mentally ill are not Norman Bates. It is statistically far more likely for someone who is mentally ill to be the victim of a crime than to be the perpetrator of a crime. In fact, it is statistically more likely for someone who is mentally ill to be the victim of a crime than the general population. According to Mental Illness Policy, “Individuals with severe psychiatric disorders who were not taking medication were found to be 2.7 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime (assault, rape, or mugging) than the general population.” Again, we see this in Psycho II as Bates isthe victim of an elaborate plot, but the films also show him to be far more likely to be the perpetrator. In Psycho IV, Bates is convinced that his pregnant wife will give birth to someone like himself. The genetic component of mental illness may seem purely like sympathy for the mentally ill because it concludes that it is not their “fault” that they are suffering from their illness, it also produces misconceptions about the genetic component and about inevitability of behavior. While there is a genetic component to mental illness, it is not the only component. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to view criminality in general as the result of mental illness or to view criminality as the inevitable result of mental illness.

AUDIO 4

Although much of this misconception comes from disproved, age-old quackery like phrenology and eugenics, this stigma still exists in the popular consciousness today. This so-called incurability of the mentally ill and this inevitability of violent criminal behavior is portrayed in the 1978 film Halloween. Early in the film, Michael Meyers murders his sister for reasons known only to himself. Years later, Dr. Sam Loomis and Marion, a nurse, drive to the mental institution for a patient transfer. Marion asks Dr. Loomis if he has any special instructions, and Loomis, Meyers' psychiatrist, warns Marion only to not underestimate Meyers' potential for violence. Marion responds that she would prefer to call Meyers “it” instead of “him” – revealing a common dehumanizing attitude toward the mentally ill. She remarks that what bothers her the most about the mentally ill is their “gibberish” – her word – again highlighting the dehumanization of the mentally ill. Meyers soon escapes from a mental institution to terrorize the suburbs. Dr. Loomis, who had been keeping an eye on Meyers for years, believes him to be incurable. Loomis states that he spent years trying to reach Meyers, but after failing, he concluded that Meyers need not be helped – only contained for the rest of his life. Loomis, a psychiatrist, concludes that Meyers is a “devil” – he arms himself and patrols Haddonfield, Illinois like a vigilante more than a doctor. The audience is given the impression that the mentally ill are not to be cured but to be controlled. Again, the common retort to this would be “Well, would you want Michael Meyers rampaging around your town?” but that is not the point.

AUDIO 5

Much like Norman Bates, the mentally ill are not Michael Meyers. Again from Anthony Carlton Cook: “Loomis’ allusions to Meyers’ mental illness as a physical manifestation of pure Evil does not read as melodrama in the film. For instance, Loomis and Brackett come upon a mutilated, partially eaten animal. Neither the doctor nor the sheriff knows for certain how it arrived there. Loomis, certain that Meyers 'isn’t a man,' hints at Myers as the culprit. An examination of the corpse for animal or human teeth marks does not seem necessary. Loomis, as panic figure, and as an authority figure (a doctor, and specifically, Meyers’ psychiatrist), only alludes to the 'fact' that he 'knows' Meyers is guilty. No definitive proof exists, yet within the narrative of Halloween, the proof is self-evident. Loomis abuses his position and his expertise to push Brackett to accept the idea of Meyers’ 'inevitable' predilection for violence, a fact that Meyers’ previous institutionalization proves in advance of any act of violence.”

Meyers' origins become more muddled and supernatural in later films, but by the 2018 sequel that retcons these sequels, Meyers is once again simply a man with a mental illness who is incapable of being cured, unwilling or unable to control his violent tendencies, and so dangerous that he cannot be contained even in his advancing age.

Although horror films, on average, began to treat mental illness differently as time went on, the Halloween film series retcon sequel required a return to the original premise of the 1978 film. It does, however, examine post-traumatic stress disorder with greater care and sympathy, in this case, the one suffering being Halloween protagonist Lorie Strode. Her family does not take her concerns seriously and has largely disconnected from her, an unfortunately common occurrence for someone suffering from a serious psychological disorder. Slasher films in particularly have a long history of their antagonist being either mentally ill in the “maniac” Hollywood sense. Billy from the 1974 film Black Christmas is only implied to be mentally but later given the “escaped from the asylum” backstory in the 2006 remake. Pamela Voorhees from the 1980 film Friday the 13thsuffers from auditory hallucinations.

Billy Chapman from the 1984 film Silent Night, Deadly Night is also portrayed as mentally ill, having suffered severe psychological trauma in his youth that has persisted into his adulthood. While Pamela Voorhees and Billy Chapman have backstories and motivations, mentally ill slashers are just as likely, or perhaps more likely, to be either faceless or masked.

AUDIO 6

Portrayals of mental illness in horror have changed over time. In the Halloween reboot movies, Michael Meyers is given a backstory, even sympathy. This might seem anathema to fans of the original movies, but it's also an inevitable consequence of changing ideas about the mentally ill. Sharon Packer, author of Mental Illness in Popular Culture, wrote “The introduction and evolution of the mentally ill killer appears to be a product not only of cultural and social changes of the time, but also psychological research and the public’s awareness of it. The majority of the viewing public is most likely aware of but unfamiliar with the realities of mental illness. Like fictional portrayals, sensationalized media coverage of real-world events can influence the public’s opinion of it.” Nevertheless, Michael Meyers in any incarnation is still Michael Meyers, a mentally ill serial killer. A defensive retort to the influence Packer mentions might be “So, what? We can never show a slasher who happens to be mentally ill?”

Well, mentally ill slasher antagonists are not villains who happento be mentally ill but villains because they are mentally ill. This distinction helps the real world stigma to spread. A single movie is not going to change public perception of mental illness, but the cumulative effect of so many examples over so many years cannot simply be swept under the rug. Modern horror, post-slasher, still sometimes utilizes mental illness as the instigator of the narrative or the condition of the antagonists. A 2015 horror film The Visit features two children who live with two elderly people posing as their grandparents. The couple appears to have schizophrenia or something similar. The 2016 film Split and the 2019 film Glass feature an antagonist with dissociative identity disorder. The latter film even takes place in a mental institution. All three films were written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, who has taken criticism for consistently portraying the mentally ill as dangerous monsters in an era in which we ought to know better. The good news is that while horror movies continue to use mental illness as the instigator of the narrative, it is no longer as confined to the loose motivation of the antagonist.

AUDIO 7

Now, it is condition of the sympathetic protagonist or sometimes portrayed through metaphor. The 2010 film Black Swan features a protagonist who suffers hallucinations as a result of her obsession. The 2014 film The Babadook is the story of a widow named Amelia who struggles to care for her son following her husband's passing. A common interpretation of the film is that the entity is a manifestation of Amelia's depression and even survivor's guilt. The 2018 film Hereditary follows a family with a history of mental illness trying to manage both older and recent traumas – with a supernatural element representing a fear of this trauma being inescapable. In the 2020 film Relic, a middle aged woman begins to notice strange behavior in her mother, slowly becoming unrecognizable to her – a metaphor for cognitive changes in the elderly, such as the onset of dementia. In many of these more modern horror films, mental illness is not a “boogeyman” but something that the protagonist is processing and will attempt to overcome. For example, at the end of The Babadook, Amelia locks away her grief – the entity – but does not annihilate it. She learns to live with it and be in control of her own life, the master of her own destiny. This grief will not consume her and will not harm her son. In Relic, even after the elderly woman becomes inhuman, her daughter and granddaughter decide to stay with her and care for her. She is not a monster, she is simply different from who she once was.

These more sympathetic portrayals of mental illness are a great relief after decades of stigmatization by the horror genre. None of this is meant to make anyone feel guilty for watching or enjoying these portrayals, and none of this some condemnation of the genre. This is only meant to highlight this pattern – to call attention to it – and to help stop us from internalizing it.

NO MORE PRESIDENTS

In many nations, the positions of head of state and head of government are divided. The head of government is the chief officer of the executive branch, and the head of state is the public representative whose duties vary depending on the nation's constitution. In Austria, the president is the head of state, and the federal chancellor is the head of government. In Denmark, the queen is the head of state, and the prime minister is the head of government. In the United States, the president is both head of state andhead of government. Internationally, this is not unusual, as many nation-states in Africa and South America combine head of state and head of government, but this is unusual – even unique – in the global north, the term associated with rich nations. Due to this consolidation of power within the structure of the United States as well as the international influence and wealth of the United States, the president is arguably the most powerful and influential individual in the world. The President of the United States is the only nationally elected representative in the nation. Other representatives are elected only by their district, only by their city, and so forth, depending on the political office. The President, so they say, represents the entirety of the nation. Every four years, the people of the United States of America take all of their rights, their safety, their autonomy, and their power, and willingly hand it all over to this representative.

This is the one act, they are told, that defines them as Americans and as good citizens. The people have been conditioned to imagine the general election as an exercise in democracy that faithfully elects their representative instead of seeing it how it functions in practice: choosing who will rule over them. The people frame this relationship of power as the people above the president, having final authority on who will be the president, but once said president is elected, the relationship grants authority to the president, not the people, making the election not an exercise in power but the surrender of power. The right to choose the president is certainly a lot better than no right to choose the president, and we absolutely should exercise that right, but the existenceof a head of state – chosen or otherwise – does not make us more powerful. Because of this emphasis on the election, this focus on one day of action, the ritual of the general election hides opportunities for more direct action: activism, protest, building solidarity through groups and unions – actual democratic power. Self-governance. Democracy taken seriously. Once we fill out our ballots, we neglect to exercise our agency for years, drifting through our days, safe in the knowledge that our ruler has our best interests at heart – a faith in paternalism more than government, worship more than autonomy. Defenders of this consolidation of power invariably reference the “checks and balances” that children in the United States are taught and then expected to assume are functioning properly as adults.

AUDIO 2

However, the increasing authority of a single individual calls this common wisdom into question. The Constitution of the United States, once granting the president only the authority of a functionary officer, has been stretched to give the president far greater authority than the legislature in many instances and absoluteauthority in other instances. Defenders of this consolidation of power often retreat to referencing kings and queens to draw contrast between the antiquated executive power of old that the colonists defeated during the American Revolution and the modern, allegedly “checked” executive power of today. While the President of the United States is not a king, the president's reach and influence is greater than, say, King George III. An 18thcentury king could not wage war through drone strikes and did not have access to a nuclear arsenal. The President of the United States in the 21stcentury has been granted – and in some cases has granted himself – unilateral authority that bypasses Congress. An 18thcentury king did not have a surveillance system to spy on every citizen of the entire nation, but a 21stcentury president nominates the heads of the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, and the heads of a number of other federal organizations that control and surveil the people.

The only way in which an 18thcentury king was more powerful than a 21stcentury president was that their power was established through hereditary inheritance instead of an election. However, some presidents and presidential candidates are relatives of former presidents or are born into the wealth required to launch such a campaign. The president, unlike a king, may have term limits, but the president establishes federal officers and nominates court of appeals judges, district court judges, and Supreme Court justices who are loyal to the president's political goals and ideology. In effect, they continue the president's rule through ideology long after the president has retired or even died. The modern President of the United States has significantly more power than King George III, who, lest we forget, was cast aside to form the independent nation to begin with. The increasing overreach of the executive branch is not only a failure of checks and balances in one nation, though. It is the inevitable outcome of vertical power hierarchies and the increasing authority of the modern state – a region in which the use of legitimate violence has been monopolized. States granting more and more violent authority to themselves internationally runs parallel to the president granting more and more violent authority to himself. The President of the United States is simply the most obvious example of this unassailable pattern of the past few centuries.

AUDIO 3

If we acknowledge that the fewer who hold power, the less democracy we have, and the more power that these few have, the less democracy we have, then we have to conclude that the existence of the modern president of the United States, meaning incredible power held by only one individual, makes us less free. How did this happen, how does it currently function, and what can we do about it? [I. The Origins of the Presidency] Modern glorification of the president sets Americans' imaginations on George Washington as the father of the nation, and if he were the first president, then surely that is when the nation truly began – but that is not true. Following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the United States of America did not have a President for thirteen years. The Articles of Confederation did notcreate an office of the presidency, an executive. Instead, the first organization of the government of the United States was represented by coequal states with a horizontal distribution of power – not vertical. Some historians claim that the Articles of Confederation “failed” because this early constitution created a “weak” government, but modern scholarship and research shows that the economy was doing well during the 1780's. According to Dana D. Nelson, author of Bad for Democracy, the office of the presidency was created to better control the people.

“This growing democratic involvement was amplified in the increasing phenomenon of extragovernmental organizations of people: county assemblies, watchdog committees, radical associations, and other 'unofficial' out-of-door actions. We typically remember these self-organizations of citizens in the framers’ hostile terms, as a threat to orderly government. This might sometimes have been true. But from another vantage, we can just see them as people excited about and experimenting with new practices of participatory self-government.… It was this democratic excitement that the new office of the president was designed, in part, to calm.” Radical, free associations and rebellions against the wealthy class concerned the Founding Fathers, as they themselves were amongthe wealthy class. At the Constitutional Convention, the signers aimed to put a stop to this and create a “strong” government to better control the poor. With this came the creation of the executive officer – the president. So concerned were the Founding Fathers that Alexander Hamilton infamously suggested that the President be chosen for life and that they people are not to be trusted. In his own words “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”

AUDIO 4

Although the Constitutional Convention did not take Hamilton's advice about the nation being ruled by an executive chosen for life, his general beliefs about the control of the people – those he did not consider 'well-born' – was accepted. Neither the Articles of Confederations nor the initial Constitution of the United States provided for popular elections, except for the House of Representatives, but only for property-holding white men. The Constitution provided for Senators to be elected by the state legislators, not the people, for the President to be elected by electors chosen by the state legislators, not the people, and for the Supreme Court to be appointed by the President. If we acknowledge that the fewer people are given power, the less democracy there is, and the more power that the few are given, the less democracy there is, then the creation of the presidency in the Constitution of the United States made the people less free. Bestowing incredible power into very few is argued as a means of maintaining peace and defeating disorder, as was said in the Federalist Papers, but the aim of the state itself is not to maintain order as a kind impartial judge. The state maintains a particular kind of order, a particular distribution of power, a particular distribution of wealth. The “disorder” that worries the state is rebellion against those who control the wealth. With this in mind, the creation of the president by the very class who controlled the wealth can be seen as fortifying itself against rebellion, and maintaining control over the poor, over the people in general.

There was a brief moment in history in which the United States, even with the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation, could have continued without a president. During the Constitutional Convention, those present debated forming an executive office that would be shared, perhaps co-equally, among several people. A concept not unlike the Swiss Model of government today. Those who supported this model of the executive branch perhaps feared what a single executive could do, having only recently cast off the King of England. Proponents of a single president argued, instead, that a sole executive would offer a sense of governmental strength, or, to put it in more realistic terms, a single executive would have the people attach their sense of self to a single man. That single man – that president – would represent the nation to the people. Attacking the president would be seen as tantamount to attacking the nation. The people would learn to “trust” the president in spite of what he might do. In other words, for reasons of propaganda and control, a sole executive who “represented” the nation suited the interests of the wealthy political class. We see this in action even today, as criticizing the president is met with cries of “That's your president!” by his defenders. If the president is criticized by a foreign power, his defenders will feel that they, too, have been insulted, and will then support the president with even greater zeal. The president represents the “strength” of the nation.

AUDIO 5

Strangely, when Americans are unsatisfied with a president’s performance, instead of believing the president should have less power or finding ways to limit the president's power, the president is given more power, with the promise that greater authority will allow the president to accomplish his goals. This is touted as “strong leadership” instead of what it is: the consistent increase presidential power throughout the course of American history. [II. Pardons and the Protection of the Presidency] Presidential powers are not simply those written explicitly in the United States Constitution. They are also a series of “implied” powers that a president has suggested that he has, then has exercised successfully, subsequently creating a precedent either in law or in ritual to normalize and codify this power. Article II, Section II of the Constitution establishes the authority of the president, but this authority has been stretched and expanded through these “implied” powers. For example, the power to pardon is explicitly given in Article II, Section II, Clause 1, but the manner in which this should be carried out as well as limits on pardons are vague. Pardons are only mentioned once in the Constitution, practically in passing, not even given its own sentence. “...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Because the entirety of the pardon power is less than half a sentence, presidents have pushed the limits of pardons to suit their political goals and personal interests, and since the Supreme Court is often made up at least partly by justices who were chosen by that very president, this executive overreach is often held up as constitutional and therefore permissible by future presidents as well. For example, in 1865, Congress passed a law that disbarred former members of the Confederacy. Augustus Hill Garland, a former Confederate Senator, received a pardon from President Andrew Johnson. This ended up in the Supreme Court, and the Court sided with President Johnson. Because of this reaffirmation of the absolute nature of the presidential pardon, the president can even pardon individuals who have not yet been charged or convicted – pre-emptive pardons. That was the court precedent used in the presidential pardon of Richard Nixon. It also allowed President George H.W. Bush to pardon former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and former CIA official Duane Clarridge beforethey were tried on Iran-Contra Affair charges.Presidential authority that is “implied” but not explicitly stated by the constitution is often cited, but implied limitations are hypocritically ignored. For example, the end of the sentence, “...except in Cases of Impeachment.” is implied to bar the president from pardoning anyone being impeached or anyone involved in charges related to the president's own impeachment.

AUDIO 6

However, because it does not explicitly say so or go into details, the “traditional” view of this part of the clause is thatonly impeachment charges themselves are precluded from presidential pardons. The impeachment charges against President Donald Trump focuses predominantly on his allegedly withholding of foreign aid from Ukraine, but the articles of impeachment also referenced his “previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections,” meaning Russian interference in the 2016 election. Roger Stone was convicted of obstructing an investigation into Russian election interference. This means that President Trump should not have been able to commute Stone's sentence since his conviction was related to Trump's impeachment charges. The part of the clause about impeachment is clearly meant to suggest that the president cannot use the pardon to protect himself. Nevertheless, Stone's sentence was commuted. Wealthy individuals who commit crimes in favor of the president know that they can be pardoned or have their sentence commuted if they are caught. For example, President Ronald Reagan pardoned New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, having previously been convicted of 14 counts of illegal contributions to Richard Nixon. President Donald Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for his illegal campaign contributions. In short, implied powers are utilized, and implied limitations are ignored.

Although the president seemingly does not have the power to pardon himself, he is almost completely protected from prosecution, absolving anything he does in office of any legal consequences. The United States Constitution does not say that the president cannot be charged, arrested and prosecuted. Who says that the president cannot be prosecuted? The Department of Justice. And who selects Attorney General, the head of the department? The president. Thus, even though it is technically not law or in the constitution, the policy to protect the president enforced by a federal executive department, whose head is chosen by the president. This immunity from prosecution is another example of the president becoming more powerful over time, as the Department of Justice that protects the president did not exist until 1870, almost a century after the United States declared its independence. The structure of the government changed to give even greater power to the president.

The only remedy for a criminal president is the impeachment process outlined in the Constitution, Article II, Section IV: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” However, the makeup of the nation and how it interacts with the government changed following the signing and ratification of the Constitution that outlined this process.

AUDIO 7

The Constitution was signed in 1787 and was in effect by 1788. Only after its ratification did the United States have its first formal political party, the Federalist Party, in 1789. This spun out of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates in drafting the Constitution. Due to party loyalty, no president has ever been convicted by the Senate. The House of Representatives has impeached Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, but the Senate has never convicted. This is because the Constitution states that the House only requires a simple majority, but the Senate requires a two-thirds vote to convict, meaning the vote to convict must be bipartisan. If there were, say, three major parties in the United States, a Senate conviction might be possible, but in the two-party system, the barrier is too high. Due to the emergence of the party system, the president is nearly invulnerable to conviction by the senate, and even if he were convicted, the Constitution states that the penalty for conviction is simply removal from office. The Senate is not putting the president on “trial” in the tradition sense. If the president ever feels that he couldbe convicted by the Senate and charged after he is no longer a sitting president, he can always resign before impeachment even comes up in the House and have his vice president pardon him in exchange for the presidency. The people of the United States are at the absolute mercy of the president if there is nothing he can't do, and nothing he can't get away with.

If the president is effectively above the law, then the president has too much power. [III. War and Foreign Policy] According to Bad for Democracy by Dana Nelson “The Constitution, as we know, both defines and limits the power of the three branches. Its description of presidential powers, however, is

both less extended and less precise than its description of the scope and limits of the legislative and judicial branches – a vagueness within which claims to executive power have found traction. … It also seems possible that understandings of the founders’ 'intent' have changed with the times. To take a prominent example of such a historical shift, the Constitution denominates the president as 'commander

in chief.' This is a title that seemingly decrees wide powers over democracy for the president. But most governmental historians agree that the title – invented by King Charles of England in 1639 and regularly granted to the British colonies’ governors – was a simple and hollow formality, not a signal that the president was to be vested with supreme constitutional agency...” Even the authors of the aforementioned Federalist Papers, who were strongly in favor of having a president, were explicit that there was no intention in the Constitution whatsoever to give significant war powers to a single individual, even the president. Nevertheless, when a president wanted more power in foreign policy, he exercised it through this vague, formal title of commander-in-chief.

AUDIO 8

For example, when John Tyler assumed the presidency after the passing of William Henry Harrison, he quickly informed the cabinet – who had already decided all issues during Harrison's brief tenure – that he, instead, would have the final say on all matters, and if they had a problem with that, they could resign. When nearly all of them did, in fact, resign, he chose a cabinet full of loyalists who would not oppose him. Tyler was so reviled that he was expelled from the Whig Party. Tyler expanded the powers of the presidency in regards to the military through his annexation of Texas. Tyler used Secret Service funds to support military actions without congressional approval. This effectively seized war powers in peacetime. When Abraham Lincoln assumed his office, Congress was in recess, so he delayed their convening so that he could act unilaterally, enlarge both the army and navy beyond their authorized strength, spent public money without congressional approval, and instituted a naval blockade. Theodore Roosevelt expanded war powers further by interjecting into the Russo-Japanese War and committing the US military to support Japan. When he was told that doing so without Congress was unconstitutional, he simply disagreed, and that was that. Roosevelt claimed that the powers implied in the Constitution – “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” – was both vague and broad enough for him to do as he pleased.

All these instances had the president decide that he had more power than previously used, institute that power, and wait to see if he could get away with it. Once he did get away with it, the executive overreach was no longer overreach. It became the norm. The Constitution is only a document, and what the Constitution meant in theory but only be found in practice. In other words, various presidents throughout the years determined themselves what powers the Constitution gave them by exercising implied powers and seeing if those powers remained after initial use. Moving to more contemporary wars, when Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia, it normalized the commander-in-chief's authority to invade and bomb even neutral countries during a time of war or peace. In 1969 and 1970, Congress voted to deny funding for US ground troops in Cambodia as well as Laos and Thailand. Nixon signed the bills into law but also stated that doing so meant nothing, remarking that his signature “...will not change the policies I have pursued and that I shall continue to pursue toward this end.” Congress passed the War Powers Act to stop Nixon, which he vetoed, which Congress finally was able to override. Nevertheless, the damage had been done, and the War Powers Act contained enough loopholes to be effectively worthless for future presidents. No president has accepted the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, claiming it violates the separation of powers and the president's authority as commander-in-chief.

AUDIO 9

However, others would argue that unilateral war powers are the actual violation of separation of powers and that the War Powers Act merely reinforces language already in the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, nominated by the President, has reaffirmed the commander-in-chief as having final authority. In 2000, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge brought by Congress that US intervention in Yugoslavia violated the act. In 2001, after some international back and forth over the legality of threatening war over a matter of extradition, the administration asked Congress to pass The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a resolution that allowed the US military to attack Afghanistan. However, in Congress' haste, it gave George W. Bush and future presidents a blank check to wage war, order drone strikes, and commit to bombings of any nation suspected to have terrorists, which covers, broadly, any nation. Section II of the AUMF explicitly states that this does not replace the War Powers Act, but AUMF has made the War Powers Act even more toothless than it once was. When a president wants to avoid the deadlines for congressional authorization outlined in the War Powers Act, the president simply says that the military intervention in question is not a “war” but some other action distinct from a war – a defense sometimes used by the Barack Obama administration. Arthur M. Schleisinger, author of The Imperial Presidency, wrote:

“The Founding Fathers made a deliberate effort to divide the control of the war powers. They vested in Congress the authority to commence and authorize war, whether that war be declared or undeclared. At the same time they vested in the Presidency the conduct both of ongoing foreign relations and ongoing war as well as the right to respond to sudden attack when Congress was not in session. This division of powers was inherently unstable. ...the presidential power to conduct diplomacy and the congressional power to authorize hostilities had each the potentiality of overwhelming and nullifying the other. If the President were to claim all the implications of his control of diplomacy, he could, by creating an antecedent state of things, swallow up the congressional power to authorize hostilities.” And that is exactly what has happened. The president does whatever he wants, drone strikes whoever he wants, and even if Congress disagrees and finds this unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, the aforementioned limitations of impeachment provide little recourse. [IV. Vetoes, Executive Orders and Federal Departments] One power granted to the president is the ability to choose the heads of his federal executive departments, filling them with those of similar ideology or his political cronies. This is another example of presidential powers increasing over time because even though these appointments are within his rights, the amount of federal executive departments and the scope of these departments have both increased in the past two centuries.

AUDIO 10

Congress set the date that the Constitution went into effect as March 4th, 1789, and later that year the State Department, Treasury Department, and the Department of War were officially established, but everything else came about later. Department of Interior in 1849, Agriculture in 1862, Justice in 1870, Labor in 1913, Commerce in 1937, Department of War changed to Department of Defense in 1947, Health and Human Services in 1953, House and Urban Development in 1965, Transportation in 1967, Energy in 1977, Education in 1979, Veterans Affairs in 1989, and Homeland Security in 2002. Furthermore, the president appoints the heads of other organizations that did not exist during the time of the Founding Fathers, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, established in 1908, the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947, the National Security Agency in 1953, and so forth. In short, though the president always had the authority to make such appointments, the amount of appointments did not exist until later on. These new departments and the president's influence on said departments has given the president increasing power and control over the centuries. These departments can (and have been) weaponized to serve the president and his political goals. Presidents direct these departments through “executive orders” – an authority that only exists in the Constitution because presidents have consistently said it does and because their Supreme Courts have largely accepted this.

The Constitution does not contain the words “executive orders” – instead, presidents cite the “take care that the laws should be executed” part, which is an extremely broad view. Some scholars believe that “take care” certainly does not mean create but enforce federal law. Executive orders were uncommon in the early days of the presidency, as the first five presidents signed a total of fifteen executive orders combined. Theodore Roosevelt changed all this, signing over 1,000 executive orders. Since Roosevelt, all subsequent presidents signed over one hundred or in some cases over one thousand executive orders. The lowest was Gerald Ford, who served less than one term, at 169 orders, and the highest was FDR at 3,728. The President does more than choose the heads of departments. He can, and does, control the departments as much as he wants. According to Tara Branum, author of President or King: “The increased use of executive orders and other presidential directives is a fundamental problem in modern-day America. The Constitution does not give one individual an 'executive pen' enabling that individual to single-handedly write his preferred policy into law. Despite this lack of constitutional authority, presidential directives have been increasingly used both by Republicans and Democrats to promulgate laws and to support public policy initiatives in a manner that circumvents the proper lawmaking body, the United States Congress.

AUDIO 11

It would be foolhardy to ignore the danger inherent in this situation, simply because one might like the individual currently holding the presidential pen. It would be hypocritical, as well as dangerous, to seek change when a president from the opposing political party is in power, but to ignore the problem once a president from one's own party has been elected.”When Congress wishes to limit the president's influence, the often find it difficult to the president's veto power and the loyalty of his party. A loyal political party sides with their president far more often than not, making overriding a veto challenging. Every Bill passed by the House and Senate, before it becomes law, must be presented to the President.

He either signs it or vetoes it, returning it to Congress. The veto can only be overridden by a two thirds majority in both the House and Senate. Constitutional scholars and apologists for presidential power claim that this is merely a check on the power of Congress, but the veto gives the president – a single individual – more power than as many as 66 out of the 100 Senators. Only at 67 can the Senate have more say-so than the president, and that does not happen all that much. It wasn't until John Tyler, the tenth president, before a veto was overridden, and it wasn't until Franklin Pierce, the fourteenth president, before the president's success rate with the veto fell below 50%. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the thirty-second president, issued 635 vetoes and was only overridden nine times, meaning FDR's success rate with the veto was 97.6%.

George H. W. Bush's success rate with his vetoes was similar at 96.6%, Clinton at 94.4%, Obama at 91.7%, and Trump, thus far, at 100%. The only modern president with a more mixed success rate with the veto was George W. Bush, and even he successfully rejected bills most of the time. Generally speaking, if the president does not want a bill to be signed into law, chances are the bill will not be signed into law. In 1974, the president was granted even more power under the National Emergencies Act, which formalized the rules surrounding the president's ability to call for a national emergency.

Under the act, the president grants himself over 100 statutory powers. Everything from public health to defense. Obviously, this can be abused by any president, as whether or not something is an “emergency” is his judgment call alone. During the Trump administration, the president declared a national emergency to secure funding for a border well. When the emergency was called to end by Congress, Trump simply vetoed the bill.

AUDIO 12

To put it another way, the president can decide to grant himself significantly more power than he already has, and he is often the one who decides whether or not to keep that power. [CONCLUSION] The pattern of presidential power over the centuries is that the president interprets the Constitution in the broadest possible sense, overreaches his power, and then once his executive overreach is either unchallenged or maintained following a failed challenge by Congress, future presidents continue with this new level power, and perform even more executive overreach. Increasing use of executive orders and vetoes, new federal departments, war powers – all of it came about by a president stretching the limits of power and seeing how much he could get away with. We know it doesn't have to be this way, because it wasn't always this way. Reformists would say that legislative reform or even a constitutional amendment outlining the limits of the presidency even greater detail are necessary. Some reformists go further, citing European examples of the division of power, particularly the Swiss model of government. Switzerland's “executive branch” is actually a federal council of seven people, not one. A kind of collective presidency. The actual “president” is elected by the federal assembly from the federal council, but the office is mostly ceremonial, has little, if any, real power over the rest of the council, and only serves a short one-year term.

The nation is organized through cantons and communes, and the people engage in semi-direct democracy. Aaaand some would say that we should go even further and move toward a society without any unjust social or economic hierarchies, which includes not only the removal of the head of state but the removal of the state. I know which one I want. Regardless of whether one wants reform or revolution, it seems so clear, even among moderates, that the president of the United States has far too much unilateral authority. So much power vested in one person can be – and has been – disastrous. Haven't we progressed enough as a society that we shouldn't need to attach our sense of worth, sense of self, and national identity to a single individual? Our lives are our own. We canlive in a world with no more presidents.