Missile Crisis but led the nation into Vietnam, where Lyndon Johnson's ambitions foundered. But it was Richard Nixon who showed that a broad exercise of presidential power could produce disaster. His efforts to cover up Watergate made heavy use of executive privilege, control of law enforcement, and authority over the agencies. Watergate spurred a series of "reforms" that sought to constrain executive power, but they aimed at the wrong target -- the Presidency, rather than Nixon. Subsequent Presidents defied the post-Watergate limits, and without their restoration of executive powers it is doubtful that they could have brought the Cold War to a successful and unexpected conclusion.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDLESS Of POLITICAL party or electoral support, the great Cold War Presidents shared a common attitude toward presidential power. Presidential activism abroad was demanded by necessity, rather than adventurism. Presidents launched wars and covert actions throughout the world to contain the Soviet Union. The global reach of the Soviets and their possession of nuclear weapons seemed to call for greater centralization of policy in the branch best able to act with secrecy, speed, and decision. Congress could have chosen to stop the executive by refusing to provide funds and troops, but it preferred to keep a large standing military ready and available. Congress had every political incentive to allow the President to take the initiative, and to be blamed if war and national security went badly. A similar dynamic characterized the Cold War Presidency at home. Even though Congress held the constitutional upper hand over domestic affairs, the change in the nature of the federal government placed the President in the central role. Congress was only too happy to delegate to the executive branch the rule-making authority over issues with difficult trade-offs. Enhancing presidential control over the agencies helped coordinate decisions and ensure a common administrative policy. Congress naturally sought to maintain its ability to influence the agencies, leading to struggles over the removal power. The Supreme Court would uphold restrictions on removal, but the political system came to its senses and ended any new efforts to fragment the executive branch. The Cold War witnessed the high and low points in the exercise of presidential power. Watergate ripped apart the political fabric of the nation and weakened popular trust in government, but the abuse of power by a single President in pursuit of his personal interests, as opposed to those of the nation, should not obscure the greater benefits from executive initiative. Because of the consistent application of force and pressure against the Soviet Union and its allies by Presidents of both parties, the United States was able to counter the most profound threat to its existence. While it fought several smaller wars and suffered its share of casualties, the United States achieved this result without losing the lives and treasure that come from a great power war. It would have been impossible without the exercise of presidential power from the Korean War, to the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the Reagan Doctrine. This should give pause to critics who believe the problem with the modern Presidency is that it has grown too strong. Watergate understandably provoked a flurry of reforms designed to restrict presidential powers, but the problem with Watergate was not the Presidency itself, but the man who used the powers of the office to advance and protect his personal interests. While the Watergate reforms proved somewhat toothless, Congress has it well within its powers to stalemate any President. Luckily, the Cold War Congresses supported Presidents to bring the Cold War to a fortunate conclusion. Congress could have passed stricter laws that would have guaranteed that another Nixon could not abuse the powers of his office, but they would have come at the price of an energetic executive capable of