The Unitary Executive/Imperial Presidency & the Dangers of a Educated Proletariat
An American Tragedy in 100 Days
On My Mind, 05042025: Despite 400+ years of recognizing the value of educating the citizenry is vital to the success of the experiment in civilization happening in colonial and post-colonial America, in 1968, California Governor Ronald Reagan’s education adviser, Roger Freeman, warned the governor, “We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat…We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college]…”. At a time when higher education was diversifying nationwide with expanded opportunities for the poor and marginalized to attend college for very low tuition fees or even tuition-free (the California public college/university system was tuition-free to residents), conservatives made the case there was “danger” in allowing just anyone to attend college. Instead of supporting education as good for society and insisting it be affordable, they asserted college education is a personal choice and that the government should only minimally support it [i]. Reagan ended tuition-free college in the California System, and other states quickly moved to reduce public funding for college education drastically. Reagan et al. realized that the conservative movement was at risk from the diversification and education of America. The only hope for them to retain power was to avoid the “…danger of producing an educated proletariat…” and manage immigration to their benefit (a matter for another day). Their ultimate goal was a unitary executive model of the presidency. An educated electorate would never allow such a thing.
The Unitary Executive
President Nixon argued that the President was the head of the Article II Executive Branch. He asserted that a unitary executive had singular power and authority over every aspect of the Executive Branch and was the ultimate policymaker, with all others subordinate to him. By this theory, the President has the authority to directly control the activities of all departments and agencies within the Executive Branch. In contrast, the Article I Legislative Branch and the Article III Judicial Branch have authority over no departments or agencies of government. While the Legislative Branch has specific constitutionally defined roles, its only relation to the Executive Branch, i.e., the President, is through a broad and nebulous concept of “checks and balances,” implied but not explicitly articulated in the Constitution. The role of interpreting the law and determining its constitutionality belongs to the Judicial Branch. However, these “checks and balances” and “law and order” judicial determinations only constrain a President willing to submit to the authority of the Legislative and Judicial Branches. If the presidency is occupied by a fully-fledged adherent to the unitary executive theory of the presidency, “checks and balances” or “law and order” are irritants with no authority. When Nixon first rolled out his attempt to implement the unitary executive theory, no sufficient popular support existed to uphold his claim. The post-WW2 “educated proletariat” was unwilling to follow Nixon’s aspirations for a unitary executive. Consequently, when he pushed the boundaries of propriety, the Legislative Branch, including members of his party, resisted and stopped him with the threat of impeachment. With no popular base of support, Nixon retreated and resigned.
The Reagan re-boot of the unitary executive
Reagan, realizing the failings of Nixon’s effort to implement the unitary executive due to lack of popular support, expanded his efforts to stall or end the education of “proletariats.” During his term as President, he joined forces with congressional leadership to pass drastic cuts to the support of education. Suddenly, middle-income, working-class, and marginalized students needed more financial assistance for college education. The students and their families were forced to take out student and parent loans. The Reagan administration justified the cuts as part of a significant philosophical shift to return to a time of “traditional emphasis on parent and student responsibility for financing college costs,” a fable but an effective tool of nostalgia in a time of social turmoil (post-Vietnam, civil rights, economic challenges, etc.,). Critics viewed the cuts as extreme and predicted that applications from low-income and marginalized students would drop. Such was the legacy of Reaganomics—the funding of tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy by slashing support for social programs, including education. The Republican Party consensus was that students were an economic burden on the country and that taxpayers were not obligated to fund student aid.[ii] Reagan targeted higher education and public elementary and secondary schools, creating a toxic environment of distrust, disparagement, and destruction in local public-school communities nationwide. His mantra, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” included in his first inaugural address, was repeated often and everywhere to seed mistrust of government. It was especially destructive to public schools and ideologically polarized the nation. His goal was not to improve education but to disparage and destroy the government’s role in public schools at every level. Indeed, if the children of the proletariat class could be made to feel they were undeserving of higher education or that it was economically unattainable, the “danger of producing an educated proletariat” would resolve itself. Moreover, reducing funding for education and shifting the budgetary burden to the students made it unbearably expensive and necessitated loans[iii]. Children of the proletariat and others attending college would be so debt-burdened that they would not have time to pay attention to politics. Compliancy and complacency of the uneducated and financial desperation for the educated were the goals. This would create an environment in which the unitary executive could work.
Reagan and the Republican Party began building a broad base of support for the idea that our nation needed a powerful, unchallenged, unitary executive. He and the Republican party started the slow slough toward building a popular foundation of support by enlisting the help of conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation principally, and special interest groups who swayed influence over large numbers of citizens (e.g., the Moral Majority, Grover Norquist’s American for Tax Reform, and the NRA). Recognizing the changing demographics of our country under Reagan, the intensity of furthering the idea of the unitary executive took on special urgency. As the population became less white, less conservative, and less willing to conform, the unitary executive was the Republican solution for retaining power. The story of education is but one of many examples to demonstrate the insidious intent of the Republican goal of a unitary executive for the maintenance of power.
DJT and the Imperial Presidency
We now find ourselves on what Paul Harvey would call “Page Two.” Everything preceding is the set-up, and “Page Two” is the consequence. While the Republican Party in 2016 may have thought more traditional candidates were still required to achieve their goals, the Reagan era efforts of changing electoral calculus had been more successful than realized. Along with all his other efforts, Reagan ended the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987, allowing American broadcast radio to be overrun with right-wing propaganda (Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in 1988, Murdoch’s Fox News in 1996—a topic for another day), by 2016, the stage was set for someone willing to push Americans to the extremes. Donald J. Trump descended the golden steps of Trump Tower in NYC and announced his candidacy. In his first term, he appeared to be trying to conform to traditional governing norms. This never fit him well.
Looking back, the appeal of leading the country as a unitary executive more closely matched Trump’s character. During the Biden presidency, Trump ignored the more traditional Republican leadership and more closely aligned with the Heritage Foundation and his MAGA base. The Heritage Foundation research institute, founded in 1973 in Washington, DC, always sought to promote conservative public policy. In more recent years, the unitary executive theory of the presidency became a core element of their efforts. Their Project 2025 document and the more secretive transition plan are now recognized as the guiding policy program for Trump’s second presidential term. Trump et al. are fully committed to instituting a unitary executive in the office of the presidency. The actions of his first 100 days demonstrate this: 143 Executive Orders, 42 Proclamations, 42 Memorandums, and only five pieces of legislation. This is unprecedented in US Presidential history and sets the stage for a slippery slope to a fully developed authoritarian, fascist, and oligarchical Imperial Presidency. Now, without any pretense, Trump et al. seem devoted to destroying all the conventions of a “checks and balances,” “law and order” republic and pressing the nation to concede fully his imperial status. Alas, whether he is successful or not, it no longer matters. The republic trembles on the precipice of destruction. As is Trump’s long-standing style, if he can’t have it all, he will destroy it all in the process. These past 100 days of torching our nation, its Constitution, and its moral character have done their damage.
September 17, 1787
Well, Dr. Franklin, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?
A Republic, if you can keep it.
I believe Dr. Franklin may be feeling a bit gloomy today.
To borrow again from Mr. Harvey, “Now you know the rest of the story…good day!”
[i] During the Colonial Period, education received significant attention from the evolving immigrant communities founded from Maine to Georgia. Boston Latin School, a public (open to all) school founded in 1635, was funded from the public treasury and rental fees from land granted to it. Dedham, MA, established a public school in 1644, funded by taxes from citizens. In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, public education became a key component of the growth and development of our country from its colonial beginnings to its expansion as an independent republic. While methods of funding varied and accessibility was frequently limited to the more privileged males, as early as 1727, a school for girls, Ursuline Academy, included indigenous Americans and slaves. Though not publicly funded, it signaled education in America needed to be offered to women (the first public girls’ schools opened in Boston and New York City 99 years after Ursuline Academy). Alas, compulsory education was not instituted nationwide until 1930, and the full racial integration of our public school system awaited the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954.
While education always benefits the individual students, our nation's leadership, from the earliest colonial times until recently, recognized the societal and economic benefits of education for the country. A well-educated citizenry is more likely to be innovative, productive, and informed. Education encourages tolerance, understanding, and respect for different ideas and people, creating a more cohesive and harmonious society. An educated population is generally healthier and can make informed decisions about their health and wellness. An educated population can better engage the complex challenges of government and participate constructively in electing and sustaining our Republic. Education tends to lower crime and create an environment for economic and social success for all of society. Educated persons are less susceptible to deceit and chicanery by persons seeking elected office. All these benefits compelled a strong public commitment to education for our nation's children.
Examples of this public commitment to education, not only for the benefit of the individual, but also, and perhaps more significantly, for the whole nation, are plentiful. During the second year of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act of 1862, which created land-grant colleges across the country to provide college-level education, especially in agriculture, mechanical engineering, and military sciences. While not tuition-free, these colleges were intended to offer low-cost advanced education locally and were available to any citizen who desired to continue their education. In 1890, the Morrill Act was expanded to create similar institutions for African Americans in states that would not admit them to the existing land-grant colleges. In the 20th century, the federal government displayed its commitment to expanding educational opportunity with the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, the GI Bill, which covered tuition and expenses for veterans attending college or trade school. In the postwar era, the 1958 National Defense Education Act and the expansion of federal financial aid and work-study programs for low-income students with the 1965 Higher Education Act continued to demonstrate a commitment of the nation to provide opportunities for higher education as broadly as possible. It is not surprising that these sorts of investments in education lead to improvements in our nation's social and economic circumstances and ultimately created, from the 1950s into the 1970s, the strongest middle class in American history and in the world.
Yet a fox was lurking around the chicken yard. Though attributed to but not confirmed as a quote from Thomas Jefferson,* Jefferson scholars universally agree it reflects an accurate view of Jefferson’s attitude on education and our Republic:
“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”
Conversely, if a group is trying to diminish a free people or destroy a democratic constitutional republic, inflicting harm on public education becomes a primary objective and goal.
[ii] Recognizing Nixon’s loss of Republican support, choosing instead to support the Constitution, Reagan also revolutionized party politics by beginning the process of redirecting elected Republican allegiances from the Constitution to the Party ideology and the President, and by finding ways to overwhelm elections with large sums of money. This ultimately led to the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court and other legal decisions that have created a “for sale” environment in the American election process (a topic for another day).
[iii] The continuing rejection of student loan debt relief perfectly illuminates not only the continuing Republican strategy to maintain a financial burden on the “educated proletariat,” but also its unwavering commitment to serve corporate and wealth interests over broader issues of benefit to the citizenry. In economic crisis after economic crisis, Republican leadership consistently supports efforts to provide public financial recovery resources to private business and industry, even as the public loses financially. Student loan debt relief (with interest rates higher than car loans and home mortgages) would powerfully impact middle- and lower-income Americans and their ability to become more stable and active participants in the American capitalist/consumer economic system. No such relief is on the current horizon.
