Bush vs. Truman

In his commencement address at West Point on Saturday, President Bush once again drew parallels between his own presidency and that of Harry S Truman. Here's what the New York Times had to say (hat tip Joe Gandelman):

President Bush implicitly compared himself to Harry S. Truman
in a commencement address at the United States Military
Academy on Saturday, saying Truman acted boldly against the
"fanatic faith" of cold war communism in the same way
Mr. Bush's administration has responded to the threat of
terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he
forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the
foundations for America's victory in the cold war," Mr. Bush told
the class of 2006.

The comparison between Bush and Truman is inapt for a number of reasons, but there is one in particular that I want to highlight. Because Truman's actions during the Korean War gave rise to the most famous Supreme Court case on the issue of executive power--Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)--some have suggested that Bush takes after Truman in his tendency to push the envelope in asserting presidential powers. Truman was, after all, ultimately rebuked by the Supreme Court for his attempt to seize the steel mills pursuant to his inherent authority as Commander and Chief.

A quick review of the case itself, however, is more than enough to dispel this superficial similarity. On April 9, 1952, the morning after issuing his executive order to seize the steel mills, Truman sent a letter to Congress which said, in part:

I took this action with the utmost reluctance. The idea of
Government operation of the steel mills is thoroughly
distasteful to me and I want to see it ended as soon as possible.
However, in the situation which confronted me yesterday, I
felt that I could make no other choice. The other alternatives
appeared to be even worse - so much worse that I could not
accept them. . . .

Accordingly, it was my judgment that Government operation of
the steel mills for a temporary period was the least undesirable
of the courses of action which lay open. In the circumstances, I
believed it to be, and now believe it to be, my duty and within my
powers as President to follow that course of action.

It may be that the Congress will deem some other course to be
wiser. It may be that the Congress will feel we should give in to
the demands of the steel industry for an exorbitant price increase
and take the consequences so far as resulting inflation is
concerned.

It may be that the Congress will feel the Government should try
to force the steel workers to continue to work for the steel
companies for another long period, without a contract, even
though the steel workers have already voluntarily remained at
work without a contract for 100 days in an effort to reach an
orderly settlement of their differences with management.

It may even be that the Congress will feel that we should
permit a shut-down of the steel industry, although that would
immediately endanger the safety of our fighting forces abroad
and weaken the whole structure of our national security.

I do not believe the Congress will favor any of these courses of
action, but that is a matter for the Congress to determine.

After twelve days had passed without Congressional action, Truman sent another letter to Congress in which he again noted that "Congress can, if it wishes, reject the course of action I have followed in this matter."

Compare that to the way the Bush administration handled the NSA warrantless surveillance program. After 9/11, the Bush administration sought and received a number of crucial amendments to FISA allowing for enhanced foreign surveillance authority. These amendments were included in the Patriot Act, which was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed into law by the president. When signing the bill, President Bush observed that it effectively modernized FISA and allowed for "surveillance of all communications used by terrorists."

Within weeks after signing these amendments to FISA, however, Bush secretly ordered the NSA to begin conducting warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, something that FISA expressly forbids. For the next four years, the Bush administration engaged in conduct which is criminal under FISA, and all the while, the American public and most of Congress were none the wiser. The Bush administration even played along as unsuspecting members of Congress proposed and debated further amendments to a law that was not even being followed.

There was no letter to Congress. No expression of a willingness to abide by Congress's ultimate judgment, whatever that should be. Quite the contrary. When the illegal program was exposed, the Bush administration, for the first time, claimed that Congress lacked the authority to prohibit the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.

Truman's order to seize the steel mills did not violate any congressional statute and he was clearly acting in the interests of national security and during a time of war. Nevertheless, he felt the need to explain his actions to Congress, in real time, and to make it clear that he would abide by the will of Congress, whatever that should be. Bush, in contrast, has authorized conduct which is expressly criminalized by a federal statute, a statute he himself had signed into law just weeks before. He kept most of Congress in the dark about this decision and, when caught, asserted that he had the inherent authority to disregard the laws Congress passes.

Bush is no Truman.