Even if this were a philosophical correction to the varying degrees of utilitarianism we have seen in the 20th century, the simple fact is that Constitution has never defined the job of the President in the way it has been exemplified in modern times. Even Barry Goldwater, seen as a Hawk and a warmonger, commenting on this type of presidential job description: "This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means…. If there ever was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one" (120). How do we reconcile this reverence and responsibility for the American President with the cynicism, suspicion and apathy many Americans have about politics? Certainly, the consequences of the 1980s and the decade of greed enter into the calculation, as does the President who resigned while insisting "I am not a crook." Healy sees a clear difference between the imperial presidency and the heroic presidency. Prior to 1974, the American President was held in high esteem by most Americans. Granted, the media was not near as voracious as it is in the 21st century, and some of the foibles and personal issues...

However, it was the Spring of 1975 when President Richard Nixon refused to release tapes to the special prosecutor by having "absolute privilege" by stating, "The president is answerable to the Nation, but not to the courts" (111). When the Courts rejected Nixon's view and those tapes became a matter of record, Nixon resigned. Later Healy notes that Nixon wrote "the American myth that Presidents are always presidential, that they sit in the Oval Office talking in lofty and quotable phrases, will probably never die -- and probably never should because it reflects an important aspect of the American character" (111).
This, for Healy, is the crux of the problem. Often when pundits and scholars alike warn the public about the overriding powers of the new Presidency, they are booed or dismissed as being unpatriotic. And yet, even with Barack Obama, the promises made are bound to disappoint simply due to the impossible situation engendered and the lack of Constitutional power to do the impossible. Instead, what typically happens to presidents, particularly in their second term is "a steady decline in popularity… as the public recognizes that they are unable to deliver the miracles they have promised" (311).

We may love to hear that a single candidate can restore American greatness -- if it was ever lost; that a candidate can turn around the economy by signing a few bills; or that a single president can change the geopolitical face of the globe -- but it simply isn't so. Instead, "a truly heroic president is one who appreciates the virtues of restraint- who is bold enough to act when action is necessary, yet wise enough, humble enough to refuse powers he out not have." Is this possible -- certainly, but until the American citizenry demands it, it cannot ever be.

Source:

Healy, G. The Cult of the Presidency. Washington, DC:…