Suchergebnisse

A portrayal of Woodrow Wilson's legislative leadership and administive methods has more uses than as a reminder of achievements durably impressive in themselves. His practice partly answered his own unresolved thinking about the presidency; in turn it implied theories that serve as foils in looking at later developments. The centennial of Wilson's birth is a fitting time to recount the story drawing on memoirs that accumulated after his death. The emphasis may well be on domestic policy in view of the greater attention that has been given to Wilson's role in war and peace.First we must examine the prior development of Wilson's thinking about the presidency. Our concern is the working conception of the office of American elected chief executives that he had come to hold by the time of his full entrance into public life.As a college senior Wilson wrote on "Cabinet Government in the United States." He deplored, as real cause of solicitude and doubt, "the absorption of all power by a legislature which is practically irresponsible for its acts."

A little over a century ago, De Tocqueville ended the first volume of Democracy in America with the flashing paragraph which identified two rising nations destined to become transcendent centers of power. The prescience of that ending was matched by the closing sentence of the second volume: "The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness." This sentence is more than a frame of the age, even to the hour. It hints at a theory of history; it is a clue to the relation of trends and choices.Each major trend, holding such momentous alternatives, is itself the cumulative outcome of choices. The main alternatives, likewise, result from the interaction of fresh ideas with tradition, available resources, and potential techniques. Each new choice sets in motion its limited train of consequences, to be worked out in a succession of adaptive changes. In this restricted sense, man is intermittently the captive of his own discoveries. But spontaneity survives amid the accommodating changes launched by earlier acts of creation. Recurrently, as well as originally and fundamentally, ideas are the determinants.

Federalism is not the least of interests shared by Canada and the United States. The elements of likeness and unlikeness exist in a balance that makes comparison profitable, although such comparison is allowed to remain implicit in the following survey of trends in the United States. To discuss in Canada the federalism of another country, of course, is to carry to Newcastle the ashes of its own coals, so greatly are all federal systems in debt to the monumental inquiry of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations. No similar focus yet enlightens the analysis of federal problems in the United States.The temper of the United States is incorrigibly one of contrivance. The brevity of the constitution leaves it essentially unwritten. Of the obstacles of the formal amending process, of course, it can no longer quite be said, as Frank J. Goodnow put the matter in 1911, that "the constitution of the United States is, on account of the complicated procedure and the large majorities required, very difficult, if not impossible, of amendment under ordinary conditions." After forty-three years without an amendment, six have been ratified since 1913. But the habit of relying on adjustment by interpretation is deep. The Supreme Court controversy in 1937 would have found the country at a loss to suggest just how it would amend the Constitution if the discussion as a practical matter had taken that turn. Students of government are sometimes irked by the atmosphere that takes for granted the necessity of advance by accommodation; mostly, however, their lives are spent on detailed inquiries that merely deepen the assumption. In recent years the impact of events abroad has challenged them to identify and to reaffirm the fundamentals of popular government. But the effect of these events has been to throw the United States back upon its constitutional tradition. The mood will last, it is admitted, only so long as there is movement and vigour. Never has the constitutional system of the United States been more fluent. Paradoxically, this condition encourages the survival of the old reliance on piecemeal adaptation.