Clinton’s Legacy: Another Imperial Presidency


As President Clinton’s tenure ends, pundits are trying to define the“Clinton Legacy.” Many have focused on the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment,but Clinton may find his legacy in a less sordid but no less shameful aspectof his presidency: his abuse of executive authority in foreign affairs.

Undeclared wars and contempt for constitutional limits on presidential powermark Clinton’s foreign policy. Future historians may well remember Clintonas the man who ensured that the “Imperial Presidency” would not vanish withthe end of the Cold War.

In his 1973 book coining that phrase, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.warned that America’s rise to Cold War leadership had transformed America’schief executive into a sort of elected emperor. As Schlesinger explained,though the framers had assigned the power to declare war to Congress, asuccession of presidents through the latter half of the 20th Century hadarrogated that power to themselves.

Despite his antiwar background, Clinton adopted a Nixonian view ofpresidential power. From the threatened invasion of Haiti in 1994 to thecluster‐​bomb humanitarianism of the war on Serbia in 1999, Clinton treatedthe constitutional command that Congress alone can declare war with lessrespect than the Imperial Presidents that preceded him. President Reagan’sattack on Grenada and President Bush’s invasion of Panama were undeclaredwars, but they had the constitutional fig leaf of the need for surprise.Clinton’s conduct has been more brazen.

With 1994’s Haiti intervention, Clinton stood ready to launch a 20,000-troopinvasion, while asserting that he did not need congressional authorizationto do so. In Serbia, the air war from March to June 1999 represented thelargest commitment of American military personnel and materiel since thePersian Gulf War.

Nonetheless, Clinton refused to go to Congress for a declaration of war.Indeed, administration officials would not admit that the bombing campaignover Serbia was a war. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart made that clear inan April 1999 exchange with a reporter:

Q: Is the President ready to call this a low‐​grade war?
Lockhart: No. Next question.

Q: Why not?
Lockhart: Because we view it as a conflict.

Q: How can you say that it’s not war?
Lockhart: Because it doesn’t meet the definition as we define it.

Apparently, it depends on what your definition of “war” is.

And then there were the attacks known as the “Wag the Dog” bombings. Thefirst came in the August 1998 missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan,three days after Clinton’s grand jury testimony and in the midst of a mediafirestorm over his televised non‐​apology for the Lewinsky affair. Theadministration has refused to release the evidence it claims to have reliedon for its assertions that the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant made nerve gasand that its owner was linked to terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

The second “Wag the Dog” bombing occurred on the eve of the Houseimpeachment debate when the president ordered air strikes on Iraq.Attempting to explain the curious timing of the attack, Clinton assertedthat “we had to act and act now [because] without a strong inspectionssystem, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical,biological, and nuclear weapons programs — in months, not years.” As a resultof the president’s action, we’ve since gone two years without any weaponsinspections.

The timing of Clinton’s actions gave rise to suspicion that he was applyinga chillingly literal version of Clausewitz’s dictum that war is politics byother means. That sort of suspicion was by no means alien to ourConstitution’s framers. As Madison put it, if the power to declare war hadbeen vested in the president rather than Congress, “the trust and thetemptation would be too great for any one man.”

Indeed, no one man should be entrusted with the power to lead the nationinto war. The Constitution rightly vests Congress with the power to declarewar. The Clinton years have made clear how important it is for Congress toreclaim that power.