Franklin Roosevelt, of course, was the master of the fireside chat, and even after his demise, the rapid rise of the Soviet power and the Cold War enabled Harry Truman to "scare hell" out of the country by using the media. Popular, collective fear of the Soviets tipped the balance even farther in favor of the powers of the chief executive. The Johnson Administration refused to spend the funds allocated to crucial agricultural programs, to bully Congress into accepting its deficit spending for the Great Society and the Vietnam War (87). These examples, along with the escalation of the Vietnam War, show how Democratic presidents were often just as guilty as Republican presidents of abusing the office's authority. In recent memory, the Clinton Administration went to court several times to protect conversations and documents, with mixed success during the Lewinsky scandal (9).

The point of Rudalevige is not that only Republicans abuse power. His is not a partisan book, rather the thesis he advances is that absolute power corrupts absolutely -- although it should be admitted that Rudalevige does not let Nixon off the 'hook' entirely. He notes that it was Nixon who vastly expanded the numbers and power of the White House staff, all of whom were unelected (60). The Nixon Administration was particularly guilty of paranoia and limiting the knowledge of Congress about how it was conducting the war effort as well as its day-to-day business. Its behavior in regards to Vietnam and Nixon's use of the FBI and his executive authority to conduct surveillance of individuals he considered to be his 'enemies' was notorious, and largely spawned as a result of Congressional willingness to turn a blind eye to protecting citizens' rights during a time of war.

The author suggests that ultimately, it is only Congress that can limit the power of the chief...

Psychologically, good or bad, presidents will always be greedy for power, and tend to associate their own welfare with the welfare of the nation. The reason that power within the U.S. Congress and between the other branches is fragmented is a deliberate decision on the part of the Founding Fathers to prevent the consolidation of power into the hands of one man or faction. But particularly during times of war, Congress has been too willing to give up its powers to the already more powerful executive branch. Extreme circumstances are used to justify extreme measures. Yes, Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus (the right to be held only if charged with a specific crime) during the Civil War, but was this the 'right' thing to do, anyway? Now Lincoln's action is used to justify the limits upon American freedoms through the Patriot Act that was passed after 9/11. The establishment of a prison at Guantanamo off of America's shores is also used to hide injustices, even torture because of the supposed national security demands of an administration that has already had a flexible relationship with the truth when justifying wartime actions.
The American colonists fought a revolution to prevent being lead by a king, and demanded that there should be no taxation (or war legislation) of any kind without the approval of a representative legislature. The point of Rudalevige's text is that Americans cannot protect their freedoms by limiting freedoms, which is what the current administration asked Congress to do when it passed such laws as the Patriot Act. In the past, as administrations have gotten too powerful or abused their executive authority, Congress has often attempted to take over and limit the powers of the presidency. This must occur if America is to retain a healthy…