Final answer:
The 'imperial presidency' thesis, which claims that the U.S. President has more power in foreign policy than domestic, faces several criticisms including its potential to overstate presidential autonomy, disregard checks and balances, and overlook global political changes post-Cold War.
Step-by-step explanation:
The 'imperial presidency' thesis refers to the idea that the President of the United States holds more power in international affairs compared to domestic policy, a concept initially proposed by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. to describe the modern presidency. Critics of the 'imperial presidency' point out several flaws:
- The thesis may overstate the president's autonomy in foreign affairs and underestimate the role of Congress and other actors.
- It could potentially ignore the system of checks and balances that is supposed to operate, even amid strong executive power.
- The theory might not fully account for the complexities of international relations and the fact that the presidency is still constrained by many factors beyond the office's control.
- Lastly, it does not consider how the end of the Cold War and other historical shifts have changed the nature of presidential power in foreign policy.
The leadership role of the president in international relations indeed faces challenges, such as finding the right balance between big stick diplomacy, dollar diplomacy, and moral diplomacy. Additionally, figures like Alfred Thayer Mahan, George Washington Goethals, and William Gorgas, and agreements such as the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, have all impacted the shape of America's foreign policy and its imperial reach. Yet, the end of the Cold War and the shift in global politics have necessitated a reevaluation of the 'imperial presidency' thesis as the context within which the president acts has dramatically changed.