 |
|
Constitutional Roles of the President
1) Commander-in Chief
Art II, Sec. 2: Power as head of armed forces
2) Chief Diplomat
Art II Sec 2: Power to negotiate treaties and executive agreements
Art II Sec 2: Power to nominate ambassadors
Art II Sec 3: Power to receive ambassadors
3) Chief of State
Art II Sec 2: Power to grant reprieves and pardons
Art II Sec 2: Power to commissions officers
4) Chief Legislator
Art II Sec 3: Power to convene and adjourn Congress
Art II Sec 3: Power to address Congress on the State of the Union
Art II Sec 3: Power to recommend legislation
Art I, Sec 7: Power to veto legislation
5) Chief Administrator
Art II Sec 2: Power to nominate judges
Art II Sec 2: Power to command the executive branch
Art II, Sec 2: Power to appoint top administrators
PRESIDENTIAL POWER
"Taken by and large, the history of the presidency is a history
of aggrandizement, but the story is a highly discontinuous
one. Of the ... individuals who have filled the office not more
than one in three has contributed to the development of its
powers; under other incumbents things have either stood still
or gone backward. That is to say, what the presidency is at
any particular moment depends in important measure on who
is President..."
Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1957
"Though the powers of the office have sometimes been
grossly abused, though the presidency has become almost
impossible to manage, and though the caliber of the people
who have served as chief executive has declined erratically
but persistently from the day George Washington left office,
the presidency has been responsible for less harm and more
good, in the nation and the world, than perhaps any other
secular institution in history".
Forrest McDonald, The American Presidency: An
Intellectual History, 1994
The term "power" has fascinated political scientists for thousands of years.
Who has power and how they have utilized it has been a subject of interest to Greek
philosophers, Italian political theorists, the Founding Fathers and a vast array of recent
political scientists.
As utilized a term as power is, it is still subject to wide variations in definition
Is power the ability to exert brute force?
Perhaps, but what about resistence and the problem of diminishing returns?
-or-
Is power really the ability to influence?
What does the term mean?
What are the keys to being able to influence?
When it comes to presidential power? Is the key to understanding it the use of brute force (and where is this brute force discovered?) or the ability to use the prestige of the office to influence other political actors?
Richard Neustadt's Presidential Power
According to Neustadt:
"Presidential power is the power to persuade and the power to
persuade is the ability to bargain"
1) power is dispersed in the American political system; a president just can't command and expect things to happen
2) the other institutions of government have their own constituencies with their own sources of power and they compete with the president
3) the president needs the cooperation of others (or at minimum their acquiescence) to
get things done
4) the president must persuade others that what he wants is in their best interests as well
5) the President has tools or sources of power:
a) the Constitution
b) creating good will (personal relations/ interpersonal skill)
c) his personal popularity (the popular connection) and reputation (an ancillary of the pendulum of power)
d) his ability to control the agenda (structuring skill)
e) his skill and willingness to use the tools
Development of the Presidency
There have been three presidencies:
1) the traditional presidency
2) the modern presidency
3) the post-modern presidency
part of the distinction between these presidencies lies in the audiences for each
the traditional and modern presidency--a domestic audience
the post-modern presidency--an international audience
the evolution of the presidency has been shaped by three things:
1) constitutional doctrines
2) urgent problems that force the president to act (crisis)
3) resources that enable the president's actions to have great impact
The Traditional Presidency
-designed two centuries ago to protect the people from an autocratic monarch
-constrained by the separation of powers
-the traditional presidency was intended to be a do-nothing office because the Founding Fathers
were on guard against an autocratic monarch
-the primary responsibility of the president was to see that the laws of Congress were faithfully
executed for most of the century (19th) Congress was the dominant branch and President's
adhered to a strict interpretation of the Constitution:
Taft:
-relatively isolationist
The Modern Presidency
-an outgrowth of the new expectations created by FD Roosevelt:
a) President is to propose legislation and make budget recommendations to Congress and secure
congressional endorsement of his proposals
b) President is to be active in defending and advancing America's interests abroad
c) President is to be a visible national leader who projects his personality and ideas through the
mass media
d) President is to command the political and national resources to meet these expectations
--the Supreme Court (and Congress) generally acquiesced to this
--Presidential and national resources have grown and as a result, expectations have grown---the
media is probably the President's biggest resource
--modern Presidents began to become enmeshed in foreign policy for both military and economic reasons:
a) the Soviet Union and the Cold War
b) the "mature" US economy and the emerging economic power of Asia and Europe
c) nature of social policy in US
"tweaking the edges" of social/ domestic policy
-US hegemony in the world
The Post-Modern Presidency
US now the dominant but not sole player in the world
economics--Japan
military--(Russia?)/ terrorists
--we can be the victims of forces abroad
--US needs other actors to support US actions
--the post-modern President does not really have the resources to meet all of the international
challenges that arise
Rose: "Jimmy Carter has the unenviable distinction of being the first completely post-modern
president...In retrospect, the problems of the Carter administration (oil and hostages) appear less
a reflection of the man in the Oval Office and more as symptoms of the structural shift from a
modern to a post-modern President"
Presidents now seek to cooperate and compete with our allies
Presidents increasingly must deal with foreigners who run governments and central banks and
control hostages
--develop coalitions for Iraq/ Gulf War
--economic bailout of Asian economies
Problems Related to the Post-Modern Presidency
A) The campaign is irrelevant to international issues
a) little time spent on international affairs issues
2) grueling race creates little time for reflection on international issues
3) gubernatorial advantage= people with no international experience
B) President is at a disadvantage vs. Other international actors
1) Prime Ministers are much more experienced and don't have to "learn on the job" when it comes to international issues
2) Prime Minister has legislative support while President may not
3) Prime Minister has control over Cabinet members
The Psychological Presidency
We've studied the effect of the Constitution, the media and history
on the presidency, we now need to explore the role that the specific
qualities of the man (or woman) who occupies the office.
In the 1950s and 60s political science (indeed all of the social sciences)
were influenced by the behavioral movement (Chicago school).
James David Barber was influenced by McClelland and decided to
bring this "psychological" approach to the study of the Presidency.
While many have criticized Barber, his book (The Presidential
Character: Predicting Performance in the White House) is still
considered a "classic" and generates many good discussions.
Personality: the relatively enduring qualities observed in the
behavior of individuals which are believed to play a major role in
determining that behavior (Allport)
According to McClelland, there are 3 psychological motives or
drives:
1) the need for achievement
2) the need for power
3) the need for affiliation
Presidential personality is patterned---character, style and world
view fit together in a package:
a) style---habitual way of performing three political roles:
1) rhetoric
2) personal relations
3) homework
b) world view----primary politically relevant beliefs, conceptions of
social causality, human nature, and the central moral conflicts of the
time
c) character---how he orients himself toward life; self-esteem
Personality interacts with the power situation and the climate of
expectations
The keys to understanding presidential character are:
1) how much energy the person put into their work (active/ passive)
2) how much they enjoy their work (positive/ negative)
From these to variables, a four-fold typology is developed:
| ACTIVE POSITIVE
(productive) |
PASSIVE
POSITIVE
(affection) |
| ACTIVE
NEGATIVE
(personal ambition) |
PASSIVE
NEGATIVE
(perform duty) |
Active-Positives: much activity and enjoyment of it, flexible, high
self-esteem, success in relating to the environment
Passive-Positives: receptive, compliant, and other directed characters
whose life is a search for "love" (being agreeable and cooperative
rather than assertive)
Passive-Negatives: politics is seen as a duty--lack of experience and
flexibility to perform effectively as a political leader; they withdraw
to escape from conflict; they emphasize vague principles
Active-Negatives: relatively intense effort without much emotional
reward for it; have problems in managing aggressive feelings---life is
a hard struggle to achieve and hold power; they are hampered by the
condemnations of a perfectionist conscience
| Active/ Positives:
F. D. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Bush Clinton |
Passive/ Positives:
Taft, T. Roosevelt, Harding, Reagan |
| Active/ Negatives:
Wilson, Johnson, Nixon |
Passive/ Negatives:
Eisenhower |
4) Prime Minister has more control over economic and budgetary issues and policies