The three main points from his argument are:
1) president is a clerk (always being asked to do things), constant pressures and appeals he needs to sign off on, needs to make appointments, etc.
2) President acts within a system of separate institutions sharing power, so his capacity to act unilaterally is limited, so he depends on his power to persuade and bargain. Even within Executive branch many actors share P's power.
3) his
power comes from a combination of formal powers, professional reputation, and public prestige. Professional reputation refers to how he is viewed by those with whom he must deal in congress, interest groups, media. Track record matters a lot. Public prestige is how he is viewed by those in country. Affects his ability to bargain.
The theory goes against the theory of the imperial/unilateral presidency because it says that the powers of the president are very limited and most of his powers are
from informal persuasion.
We've also looked at how the presidency has changed over time, and we note that the institutional presidency (growth of people at his disposal) has grown immensely.
Other developments in Congress, the executive branch, interest groups, and the media/press since 1960 challenge Neustadt's argument and lead to Porter's argument of the 3 Presidencies.
MacArthur, Steel Mills, Little Rock
There is the formal design of the
presidency which is listed in the Constitution, but also the adapted constitutional presidency that Woodrow Wilson devised and most have followed.
Original Constitutional presidency is composed of formal power enumerated in the Constitution.
The "constitutional" presidency: the president draws his authority from his ability to lead public opinion in addition to the authority granted to the president by the Constitution. The president take an active role in determining the government's
direction. It is a rhetorical presidency-one in which the president must take the pulse of public opinion, turn that vague opinion into concrete policy proposals, and then actively work to convince the public (and thereby Congress) to support it. The lowercase "constitutional" presidency requires the president to be more than a clerk; a leader.
Tension between the two is the root of many dilemmas and frustrations of the modern presidency—stems from the ambiguity of Constitution and how it is
in practice. Framers were very wary of demagogues, believed that they threatened democracy, wasn't popular to campaign openly to use speeches. Constitutional presidency is meant to constrain the president's ability to make policy proposals and take an activist role while the constitutional presidency is just that, leveraging public opinion to be a leader in legislation.
New presidency, allows executive to take much more power: soft power, rhetorical power, power of media and the power of
popular opinion (bully pulpit). Presidents now shape their views, use rhetoric to sway people, undermines original Constitution.
Since the formulation of Neustadt's Presidential Power theory, much has changed: growth of the institutional presidency, change in leadership structure in Congress, growth of organized interests and think tanks, growth of media and instant discussion/scrutiny, growth of divided government.
Formal powers haven't changed much, but
presidency can now be seen as three distinctive roles.
Legislative presidency concerns the ability of the President to pass laws to further his policy goals and his relationship with Congress to facilitate this.
Administrative presidency refers to the President using executive power granted under Constitution. Appointments, regulations, enforcement, deploying and commanding troops, executive orders, treaties.
Rhetorical presidency refers to the all the actions Presidents take to
exercise influence that do not revolve around legislation or executive/administrative action. Getting individuals and organizations to make different decisions than they would otherwise make. Motivate people to think/act differently, mobilize people to behave in certain ways, educate citizens on longer-term considerations.
Presidents often make use of all three of these types of power to achieve a single policy objective. These types or elements of power should be viewed as complementary
rather than exclusive.
In Going Public, questions why Presidents choose to go public instead of negotiating with Congress, as going public has costs. Can be embarrassed if things don't go well, can't go public too often, angers Congress for going over their heads.
Believes that divided government makes bargaining less appealing and less successful, forcing presidents to use public appeals. Disagrees partly with Neustadt, saying that Neustadt lived in a
time when institutional pluralism was more prevalent. There were fewer players in Congress as leadership dominated/party loyalty and bargaining with leaders would have larger future benefits. Now with interest groups, less party loyalty, more players make it harder to collectively organize and makes it more attractive to go public to target specific Congressmen.
Talks a bit about how it is easier now because of rise of media, focus on campaigning.
Relates to Neustadt's claim that
presidents have two main tools their professional reputation and public prestige. Since the professional reputation isn't as effective with divided government, now relying on the other.
President has to accomplish most of his policy goals with the support of Congress, but increased polarization makes it hard for presidents to achieve their goals, bridge partisan divide.
Roots of polarization:
President and congress share the responsibilities of
governing through shared powers, but they have different constituencies, terms of office, so different goals. Framers intended for this to be the case, but it causes issues.
Political parties don't bridge partisan gap completely, idea of a responsible party government hasn't really happened because not always unified with midterms favoring outside parties, not always congressional support because of different political incentives even within unified party.
"Southern Strategy" adopted in
1960's by Republicans that caused realignment so conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, Republicans adopting a more libertarian economic platform, population shifts from the Rust Belt to the Southeast, campaign finance (without big money, most money donated is by ideologues or issue activists that push candidates to one side)
Presidential Strategies:
1. Rely on party majorities: backlash and hurts long term
2. Agenda setting-focus on issues that bridge the partisan divide. Ex.
No Child Left Behind.
3.use veto threat to push legislators closer to his own opinion.
4.Go public if large public backing with much activism, though usually partisan divide
5.Unilateral action, though usually challenged, can be undone
6.Act quick after election, closing of legislative window.
President is aided by the fact that he is a unitary actor, while Congress has so many divisions. Often gets the first say because he is faster. Executive
power has expanded throughout history.
Expanded because of his duty to preserve, protect , defend the constitution, power to help him carry out law.
Given power as commander in chief, "executive power" in constitution, but not many formal powers unchecked.
Often Congress has not pushed back, executive takes power generally by saying "we can't wait," but president has responsibility to use coalitions instead of commands, reliance on unilateral action may not be good, risks, blowback and
less legitimacy to the issue/policy, has much administrative power, but there are checks, ways to push back.
Tools of Executive Power:
1.Executive establishment control over the bureaucrats under him: can increase personal staff without Congressional approval, recess appointments, growth in administrative power now.
2.Policy Implementation: power to faithfully execute the law, write rules that transform law into specific governmental action. OMB given authority over reviewing
regulations.
3.Signing Statements/Item Vetoes: write statements after a law is passed to declare administration won't enforce certain aspects (often used to say law violates Commander of Chief role)
4.Impoundment: in the past President could refuse to spend appropriated funds, impounding them by saying they aren't necessary, refusing to fund programs they oppose, now illegal
5.Executive Orders: can be used for wide range, used to overturn many past actions, force of law but overturned
by Congress, court, later presidents, Congress usually acquiesces though
6.Emergency Powers of calling federal troops, take control of state national guards, can take quick action many times with Congressional approval or at least not questioned
7.Foreign Relations: power through the Curtiss v. Wright case, allows unilateral power in the field of international relations, can make executive agreements, send troops into war
8.Covert action: claim national security purposes, don't disclose
to Congress
9.Secrecy and Executive Privilege: Secret orders can be issued for military and intelligence matters, withhold information, executive privilege used as justification preventing congressional oversight of administration behavior, communications with President could be kept secret as well (offshoot of separation of powers)
Incumbents have an advantage, shown historically, but only if it is the current person in office, not the party. 2/3 win
incumbents, 1/2 party incumbent.
Reasons:
1.Candidate has gained capabilities and skills while in office (ability to speak publically better, gained wider donor network, ability to craft legislation better)
2.Candidate has already won before, so skilled at campaigning
3.Voters already know him, risk-averse, name recognition
4.Proof of the candidate's talents, passing laws in office, can point to initiatives, also may just win because he is innately more talented as a person in
governing, campaigning (prize-fighter theory)
Also believes that the alternating party theory has some merit, that generally there is party fatigue leading to a change in party, but believes that incumbency advantage stands on its own as well to account for the difference.
Neustadt warns of 3 things during Presidential Transitions, characterizes transitions as not just after election, but also first 24 months of office. Extended settling in time now gone
with January inauguration and Congress already in session:
Haste: Act too quickly because too eager to carry out change under the pressure for leadership, immediate solutions. Example: staffing
Hubris: Stems from joy of winning the election, sense of superiority, thinks he has mandate to rule, arrogance, believing you will accomplish much more, not learning from those who came before
Ignorance: just don't know enough about the job, the presidency has a set of responsibilities that is
unparalleled, not enough institutional memory, not enough experience, understanding with foreign governments, not enough knowledge of appointees with each other.
Porter adds a fourth:
Overreaching: Presidents are guilty of trying to do too much too soon, discover that dissipating energies, spending too much political capital on a variety of bills leads to failure. Few victories are better.
Porter's opportunities: Presidents don't have many formal powers, so they need to rely on
persuasion. After election, they have a good amount of deference and goodwill.
-Symbolic actions: meet with other officials, bipartisan appointments, can signify early how he intends to rule, shore up relationships for the future, shape perception
-Organizational Arrangements: easier to enact change now than later, no bureaucratic pushback, shuffle priorities and responsibilities
-Legislative Initiatives: Hardest things to pass are easily passed now, Senate and House can be on your
side, reputation and power over Congress at the start, eager to help president at the start for good appearances, members are eager to appease the president at the start when he creates new councils, appoints
Bureaucracy is the instrument that carries out the legislation, actually implements it and therefore is very powerful.
Presidents fight with Congress to wield influence over bureaucracy because they want to shape laws their own way. Congress has
power over legislation to begin with, can set funding for the agencies, confirm who runs agencies, limit number of appointments in an agency.
Presidents have largely been successful in controlling the bureaucracy to do what it wants through appointments, controlling the federal budget, and reviewing agency rulemaking. President have a lot of power as a first mover, expanded their executive power over the years, hard for Congress to disagree after the fact with collective action issues, act
slowly, disagreement
Appointments: can appoint who he wants to control agency, can often increase the number of appointments he has to delegate power, can recess appoint to avoid Congressional approval
Budgets: Can use OMB to revise budget proposals, can look over the funding for certain agencies, can adjust funding for legislation they want or don't want. First mover in proposing the budget. OMB has an appointee. Congress can't often fight budgets because of collective action issues, want
own special deals
Regulations: OMB reviews the regulation and rules that each agency writes up for the laws (Reagan's executive order). Can reject regulation and force agencies to enforce/regulate according to presidential approval.
Heightened expectations for president to set national agenda in past few decades
Reasons:
1. Growth of the administration/executive branch responsibilities. (Example: Submitting a unified federal budget)
2. Campaign
promises with the reforms, detailed legislative program expected.
3. Growth caused by skilled use of the veto power in recent decades
4. Media's focus on individuals, and ability now for president to contact public directly
There are 3 reservoirs for the main issues on the national agenda:
1. Electoral Issues: campaign promises, ex. Clinton with Gingrich, education, environment, economic recovery Reagan, strongest mandate at start, important for reelection
2. Maturing Issues:
issues subject to deliberation over a long period of time, major change occurs when skill and timing align, when public sees necessary change ex. Clinton with healthcare
3. Crisis Issues: things that have to be dealt with, ex. Bailout of savings and loans industry, timing, truly crisis issue only.
Congress intervenes in executive branch's affairs often because it has a duty to manage public funds, intervene on the behalf of their constituents,
intervene when laws are not executed, oversee any corruption, mismanagement.
Congress' power mainly lies in oversight hearings, ability to provide funding, and a tactic called the legislative veto, which is now invalidated where Congress could reject Executive Branch without passing a law.
Restrictions on Congress' power now with Chadha court case, no legislative veto, limits on their oversight as their job is still restricted to passing laws and having presidents execute them, with much
latitude.
The news media and the presidency need each other in order to have success. President needs to reach American people through media and the media needs the president to provide interesting content to their audiences.
President needs to engage with media, provide them with openness to woo positive coverage and to allow for his message to enter public consciousness.
Difference in incentives though as media looks for readership and viewership
while the President looks to persuade potential voters, public opinion
4 eras of president-media interactions.
Patrician era: executive should be out of the limelight, avoid any demagoguery
Partisan era: political parties and the partisan press became popular, way for press to appeal to certain audiences, way for parties to mobilize people
Pluralist era: objective press, reject the old yellow journalism, professional press that serves to expose corruption, incompetency, president
became also more of the individual focus rather than parties, both sides legitimized by the people.
Plebiscitary era: Move away from the 3 major networks of the 50's and 60's, now many media choices all polarized. Journalists are linked to politicians by partisanship and rely on similar set of ideologies and views, but this has led to a decline in some prestige of the press post-Watergate. Demise of authenticity of the media, media now more narrow audiences, making presidential leadership
harder, with partisan sources and no broad channel of communication. Rarely does a president now try to take a national perspective and engage with all perspectives and people, but just appeals to enough factions to get majority.
Disagrees with Barber's theory of presidential character.
Highlights some plausible issues with it:
1. Hard to categorize presidents accurately without all the info, ex. Clinton active-positive in public, but with Lewinsky
scandal appears more active-negative
2. Too simple a categorization to fit complexity of personalities, there is no basis for his active-passive, positive-negative categorization in psychology
3. Psychology isn't the only factor determining presidential actions, as context matters. Carter, Ford, Bush may have been active-positives, but that was no guarantee of their success. Ex. Lincoln was good president because of political philosophy and leadership skills rather than personality.
Also
disagrees with Barber's theory of the cycle of presidential elections. Barber states that the public mood reflects different cycles of conflict, conscience, and conciliation in 12 year cycles.
1. Evidence disagrees as 2004, 2008, and 2012 were not conciliation, conflict, and conscience.
2. Doesn't take into account the changing political climate of wars, depressions, national events.
3. Barber's two models don't fit together. You would expect more positive active presidents to win in
an election of conciliation, but not the case.
Still good to acknowledge personality's role, character concerns can help. Need to focus on psychology as well.
Most presidents argue that performance cannot be accurately judged unless you have been president because you don't know the issues and the costs of the office.
Example in that war generally provides opportunity for greatness, but that is out of president's control. Ex. Lincoln.
Often
too many ways to judge, and yet even with different measures, generally rankings stay similar. FDR, Washington, Lincoln at the top
How they do with priorities: separate those things that really matter vs. things that are trivial, don't sacrifice the long term for the short term, ability to engage reality (formulate vision of where we ought to go based on a realistic set of assumptions, engage public in understanding and discussion about what the choices are), how presidents deal with crises
and the unexpected (Presidents are rarely able to see very far ahead in the road, much of what they deal with is unexpected), those who establish a set of relationship that allow them to mobilize and energize others (ones they choose to surround them, relationship with Congress, relationship with those abroad, relationship with public can public trust them?)
Earlier in history more focus on an activist president
Generally, crises help, a president needs to steer the ship the way he sees
fit, he needs to stick to his convictions rather than appeal to popular opinion always (divide nation when something you think is right is needed to be done)