|
|
After the "disappointments" of
the 1970s, textbook writers on the presidency began to change their
approaches. They began to look both empirically and normatively at
presidential power.
Empirical= DID presidents have great power?
vs
Normative= SHOULD presidents have great power?
The answer to these two questions,
engendered a fourfold typology :
|
SAVIOR
The president had greater power and should have great power
|
SATAN
the president had great power and shouldn't
|
|
SERAPH
the president didn't have great power but should
|
SAMSON
the president didn't have great power and shouldn't
|
In Chapter 1: "Evaluating the
Presidency", Nelson explores evaluations of the president by the public,
the press, bureaucrats, and members of Congress. By covering each of these
separately, Nelson emphasizes that evaluating the President is truly "in
the eye of the beholder". Each group evaluates the President in light of
what they perceive to be their best interests.
At the level of the citizen, Nelson argues that Americans are "philosophical congressionalists"
but "operational (and emotional) presidentialists"
Are citizens affected by the views of scholars and journalists? Bureaucrats
and congresspersons?
Are they (we?) victims of unrealistic expectations?
In an article by Lyn
Ragsdale "Studying
the Presidency: Why Presidents Need Political Scientists" , the
author argues that presidents should learn from political scientists that the
presidency is really about two things: image and institution.
Image speaks to public expectations and institution speaks to reality!!
Principles of Image
Making:
1) Through their speeches, presidents represent themselves as representatives
of the people and as moral an religious leaders. Their own words typically
portray them as non-partisan leaders who work alone in the government without
the aid of staff, members of Congress, or other executive officials.
2) Public opinion polls show that the public most consistently expects presidents
to place the country's interest ahead of politics, be intelligent, exercise
sound judgment in crisis, take firm stands on the issues, get the job done,
and be concerned about the average citizen.
3. In addition, public opinion polls indicate people respond to presidents
more through emotions than through rational calculations about government's
performance or presidents' positions on issues.
4. Early press coverage, which deals with family stories and future policy
plans, is more favorable than subsequent press coverage.
There is, according to Ragsdale, an
expectations gap that can be closed. :
5. Short successful wars, sudden international crises, and significant
diplomatic efforts temporarily improve the president's public approval
ratings.
6. Major nationally televised addresses also temporarily improve public
image.
7. Protracted wars, domestic riots, public protests and demonstrations, and
declining economic conditions diminish public approval.
8. During the course of their terms, presidents face a decline in public
approval. During the first and second terms, the decline begins in the first
year and continues through the third. Public approval improves somewhat in
the fourth year but also does not return to its first year high.
Principles of
Institutional Operation:
9. Hierarchical staff systems with a single chief of staff are generally more
successful than more collegial systems in which every top adviser reports
directly tot he president.
10. Presidents' own rhetoric to the contrary, cabinet government does not
work.
11. Presidents are not in charge of the 1600 people who are employed in the
Executive Office of the President.
12. Efforts to politicize the bureaucracy and bureaucratize the White House
have only a limited effect on presidents' success in policy implementation.
13. Presidents who establish their legislative agendas early---in the first
three to six months of their term---are more successful at getting specific
agenda items passed than those who wait.
14. The higher the president's level of legislative activity, the lower his
legislative success.
15. Presidential addresses and public approval increase presidents' success
in Congress. In turn, presidential success in Congress improves public
approval.
|