Last week brought a new round of cuts to longstanding federal programs and more pink slips for employees of various agencies and departments. And the Trump administration is trying to instill a new attitude among those who remain: Serve the president’s agenda, or don’t serve at all.

Critics of what President Trump is doing claim it will undermine democracy by draining the government of the expertise and independent judgment necessary to serve the people well. Excessive concentration of power in the presidency threatens the rights and liberties necessary in a democratic political system.

But those who defend the administration’s efforts also do so in the name of democracy. For them, democracy is well served by a disciplined and accountable government. The people, they argue, are entitled to know who is responsible for what the government does.

These contrasting visions of democratic life that have been in play during the first month of President Trump’s second term have venerable roots in the American experience. Right now, the balance tilts in favor of the critics.

The relentless drive to ensure loyalty to the president’s agenda has reached areas where expertise and independence serve democratic purposes. That drive is tethered to a view of presidential authority and its limits that is hard to square with the vision of the people who wrote the Constitution.

But the problem of executive overreach is not unique to the Trump administration. Indeed, American history has been characterized by a recurring cycle of presidents who seek to expand the boundaries of presidential prerogative, followed by presidents who prefer to delegate authority and concern themselves with only the most significant policy questions.

To take but one example, think of the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

As University of North Carolina professor emeritus William........

© The Hill