Back to Base 

The Presidential Congressional Relationship

the presidential power paradigm

The presidential power paradigm is a complex approach to the study of presidential power.  Now that we have explored all aspects of the presidency, let's look at some of the interactions.  The institutional connection explores how presidential actions affect relationships with the other branches of government.  While presidential actions affect the bureaucracy and certainly affect relations with the Court (remember the Supreme Court can declare acts of the President unconstitutional!) the primary relationship explored by scholars is that between the President and the Congress!

The relationship between the two branches of government is inherently strained. This is due, of course, to the notions of separation of powers and checks and balances embedded in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. The cornerstone of the relationship was to be distrust:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist the encroachments of the others...Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interests of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. (Federalist 51)

Far from remaining a static balance of distrust however, the "pendulum" has swung back and forth between a more powerful president and a more powerful Congress. Some argue that the "balance" envisioned by the Founding Fathers 200+ years ago is irrelevant today. They argue that the nature of the problems of contemporary society and the contemporary world make the Founder's vision of balance erroneous. Today, they argue, the balance (pendulum) needs to be on the side of a stronger President. That is not necessarily the case however. Events of the past three decades (Watergate, etc.) have made both the Congress and the American people distrustful of strong presidents. And yet.....Americans also want decisive action.

1) the different constituencies of Congress and the President

the inability of anyone to speak for all Congress (or virtually even for their own party in Congress) while President speaks for "the nation"

2) the nature of elections for Congress vs. elections for the Presidency

A) Congresspersons as electoral entrepreneurs who virtually disregard their political party. The dominance of nonparty sources of funding, the dominant role of constituent service all leads to a lack of party loyalty and discipline.

B) the lack of presidential coattail effects

3) "the growth of divided government"

Critics argue that divided government renders unworkable an already cumbersome, slow and inefficient political system. Some even argue that federal deficit can be traced to the 1980s divided government where each side "played chicken" hoping to see the other side back down! They also argue that divided government made electoral accountability difficult since voters could (and did) hold both sides responsible for deficits.

Defenders say divided government is not that bad. It tends to make government less "ambitious". They also argue that it is a way for Americans to create the multiparty coalition governments of parliamentary systems! (Did you know that American voters were that clever???).

4) the inherent organizational weakness of Congress

committee and subcommittee systems, lack of party discipline, weak leaders

The threat of a veto vs. actual veto



How do presidents influence the legislative process? (Ie., rather than shaping the agenda beforehand or vetoing afterward, how do presidents attempt to get the legislation they want?)

1. Indirectly, presidents can:

a) go over the head of Congress in an attempt to get the public to pressure Congress to pass the legislation the President wants. This often happens in "divided government"


b) marshall interest group forces to apply leverage to Congress



2. Directly, the President can employ:


a) favors (easy to do for a small number but impossible when vast numbers of votes are needed)


b) attempt to manage the whole process through congressional liason staff (easier to do in "unified rather than divided government")



Categories of Presidential-Congressional Relations Strategies:

1) bargaining (all)

2) armtwisting (LBJ was the archetypal armtwister--

he used embarassment, threats, reprisals)

3) confrontation (Nixon)

4) detachment (Eisenhower)

Passive-presidents emphasize detachment and bargaining. While active-positive presidents tend to employ all of these strategies as the situation demands whereas active-negatives tend to focus on armtwisting and confrontation.

Roots of the popular connection

Citizen attitudes towards the presidency are rooted in early childhood. 

Over time, many studies of children's relationship to the president have focused upon the following discoveries:

1. The child's initial point of contact with the political system is the President

(by 4^th grade nearly 90% of children can identify the President by name)

2. The first step in the socialization process is done without evaluation

3. When evaluation is ascribed (ie. Pres is "good" or "bad") it is a reflection

of the parents evaluation, not the child's

4. The president is initially "personalized" (ie., he gives things) but as child

grows the evaluation becomes more sophisticated

By the time people reach adulthood they possess a more sophisticated view

although elements of early socialization are evidenced:

1. Views of the President are still generally benign

2. Although adult assessment of performance varies, the overall

assessment of presidential performance is generally favorable

3. Crisis in American politics (especially foreign crisis) brings about

a rallying around the president

4. Citizens seem to perceive and evaluate the President as a person

rather than in terms of policy commitments, skill, and record