Click here to return to Blog Post Intro
The “presidential dilemma” is that expectations and demands are high but resources and power are limited. With demands so high, but resources so limited, it should not surprise us that presidents often fail to meet our exceedingly high expectations of what they should deliver.
Madison’s Curse or Madison’s Blessing?
Under normal or routine conditions, the presidency is—by design of the Framers—quite constrained and limited. In effect, an anti-leadership system was established by the framers, a system which—except under crisis and/or national security matters—limits and inhibits presidential power and leadership.
James Madison, in particular, feared centralized executive power and the potential for dictatorships. So, the Framers impeded leadership, establishing a web of laws and constraints that, while limiting leadership opportunities, protected freedom and liberty.
The Madisonian system provides a “Goldilocks Dilemma” for presidents:
- Power is too hot during crises and war;
- Power is too cold during normal or routine times; and
- We just can’t seem to “get it right.”
We give far too much unchecked power to presidents where they most need oversight; far too little power where they need to assert bolder leadership; and we are thus stuck with a somewhat dysfunctional system.
The presidency is a “modern” institution, capable of moving quickly, adapting with speed, changing to meet new stimuli. The Congress is a slow, deliberative body. This gives the presidency the upper hand in the modern era. It is more streamlined, more adaptable, and capable of taking quick action. Congress is not. In the modern era, speed trumps constitutionalism.
In this system it is easier to say No than Yes, and the deck is stacked in favor of those wishing to preserve the status quo by employing a veto strategy.
The Dilemma of Presidential Leadership
We expect and demand that presidents perform like superheroes, and culturally we get cues that they may be Supermen. But constitutionally and politically they rarely resemble heroes but are more likely to be Gullivers enchained.
The system Madison and the framers created in 1787 was designed to prevent tyranny, not promote efficiency.
Presidents of the Republican and Democratic parties, whether from the left and right, have faced a similar fate: the inability to successfully perform the admittedly difficult tasks of the presidency. President Calvin Coolidge claimed that his greatest accomplishment was “minding my own business.” He was a champion of avoiding big government.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, was very successful. In fact, he was so successful and so powerful that he transformed the presidency and changed public attitudes about the institution. The public began to expect, even demand, that the president solve problems. Power became more centralized, expectations focused on the presidency, the road to power ran directly to the White House.
Terry Moe explains what happened after Roosevelt, “All presidents would be held responsible for addressing every conceivable social problem—however gargantuan … intractable … far removed from the president’s actual sphere of power—and they would be expected, through legislative leadership and executive control of the administrative apparatus of the government, to take action.”
Robert Spitzer pointed out that “Roosevelt would become the yardstick by which every future president would be measured.”
Roosevelt guided the nation through the Depression, led the nation to the eve of victory in World War II, and utterly transformed the presidency. Political scientists labeled the period from 1932 through 1966 “Hallowed be the President,” noting the attitude that consumed the public.
In 1960, Richard Neustadt published the influential book Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership, where he claimed that a strong president was essential in order to overcome the natural lethargy of a system of “separated institutions sharing power.”
Lyndon Johnson’s remarkable legislative achievements in the wake of John Kennedy’s tragic assassination confirmed for many the wisdom of the strong-presidency model: the presidency was seen as the seat of wisdom, virtue, and effectiveness, and Lyndon Johnson looked like a Mount Rushmore type of leader. As a result first of Vietnam, then of Watergate, LBJ was a “Superman” who became an Imperial President.
With the rise of the president’s war powers, and the increased secrecy surrounding presidential initiatives, the presidency was usurping and abusing power and acting above the law. Scholars and the public began to condemn the “excesses” of presidential power characterized as the Imperial Presidency, and to call for a corralling of a presidency perceived as acting above the law. From 1967 through 1974 marked a presidency-curbing, if not bashing period, an era of “Deliver us from Presidents.” If blind faith characterized the “Hallowed be the President” era, blind distrust characterized the “Deliver Us from Presidents” period.
If the Johnson and Nixon years revealed an Imperial Presidency, the Ford and Carter years revealed an Imperiled Presidency, characterized as “Blessed are the Meek” (1975-1980). In 1980, Vice President Walter Mondale referred to the presidency as “the fire hydrant of the nation.”
The urge for the strong-presidency model reclaimed center stage, and a new era, the “Search for a Savior” (1980-1988) appeared. The people wanted a strong leader, one who could solve problems, one who would flex America’s muscles. Enter Ronald Reagan, a presidential knight in shining armor. Reagan seemed to be everything Ford and Carter weren’t: a strong, self-assured leader. He made grand promises, spoke in grand terms, built expectations high. He attempted to return to an era of American grandeur.
In the end, Reagan’s presidency was nearly destroyed by the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan’s engaging personality and ready wit helped make him popular, while his borrow-borrow, spend-spend approach to policy may have added to America’s military might, it also left the nation on the brink of economic insolvency. The United States went from being the world’s largest creditor/lender nation in 1980, to becoming the world’s largest debtor/borrower nation in 1988.
The presidency under George H. W. Bush was in a state of suspended animation. Bush, a man of uncompromising grayness, Bush was a manager at a time when the nation needed a leader. Bush often seemed a passive observer in a dramatically changing post-Cold War world. As conservative columnist George Will commented, “When the weight of the [presidency] is put upon a figure as flimsy as George Bush, the presidency buckles …”
The Clinton presidency proved to be one of the most fascinating roller-coaster rides in history. Bill Clinton was a masterful politician, smart, resourceful, creative, energetic, with a deft touch and a rhetorical flair. He was also a man severely character challenged.
Like Nixon, Clinton was a man of extremes: a deeply flawed character but a man of remarkable political skill; a man who produced huge blunders, but also great political successes; a man whom the people decidedly did not trust but on whom they showered high job approval ratings. The “Appealing” Bill Clinton was at war with the “Appalling” Bill Clinton and ultimately, his great political successes could not mask his deep personal failures.
In reaction to the Reagan years where the center of political gravity shifted the nation from a center-left to a center-right orientation, Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the political center. Clinton’s “Third Way” (between the liberal left of the Democratic Party and the hard right of the Republicans) allowed him to “triangulate” himself between two political extremes, and offer voters a moderate alternative to the old style left-right models.
American politics flip-flopped dramatically in the past quarter century. From the Democratic center-left (Carter), the nation lurched to the Republican hard-right (Reagan), then back to the Republican center-right (Bush), then—as a reaction to the impact of Reagan who had shifted the center of political gravity to the right, Democrat Clinton took his party from left to center and captured the White House. But two years later, with fear he was moving too far left, the voters lurched again to the hard right in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution only to see that fizzle out and a centered Clinton easily win reelection in 1996.
We tend to judge presidents on the basis of four factors:
- the scope of the problems they faced;
- their efforts (actions) and intentions (vision) in dealing with these problems;
- what they were able to accomplish; and
- what were the long term results of their actions.
By these measures, the recent presidents have disappointed us. Presidents are today in much the same position their presidential forefathers have been in: a fairly limited state of power, a fairly wide array of restraints.
Imagine by a Zimbabean Politician
Imagine that we read of election occurring anywhere in third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation’s secret intelligence agency. Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover from the nation’s pre-democratic past. Imagine that the self-declared winner’s “victory” turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother!
Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner’s opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate. Imagine that hundreds of members of that most-despised caste were intercepted on their way to the polls by state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner’s brother. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner’s “lead” was only 327 votes—fewer, certainly, than the voting counting machine’s margin of error. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and recounting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint likeminded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation. None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner’s will-to-power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of a third world country.
This Zimbabwean politician was encouraging children to study the U.S. 2000 presidential election event closely. Ultimately, after 105 million citizens voted, it was a handful of justices who finally selected a president by a 5-4 vote largely along party lines. The one truly disturbing change to emerge from the Florida vote aftermath was found in the report of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission which concluded that Florida’s election was marred by the “significant and distressing” barriers put in the way of African-Americans who were attempting to vote but prevented from doing so. Black voters (likely Gore votes) were, it seems, systematically prevented from voting. The vast majority of those who were disenfranchised were African-Americans, and the Commission charged that the Florida election was marked by “injustice, ineptitude, and inefficiency.”
America’s Leadership Aversion System
There are nine major factors that work against presidential power and effectiveness:
- the intent of the Framers;
- the structure of American government;
- The individual skills of presidents;
- America’s political culture;
- the moods and cycles of American politics;
- the decline of intermediaries;
- presidential selection;
- the “market as prison”; and
- the politics of globalization.
Essentially, the Framers wanted to counteract two fears: the fear of the mob (democracy or mobocracy) and the fear of the monarchy (centralized, tyrannical, executive power), so they set up an executive office which was constitutionally rather weak (Congress had—on paper at least—most of the power), dependent on the rule of law, with a separation of powers in order to insure a system of checks and balances.
James Madison, like most of the Founders, feared government in the hands of the people, but he likewise feared too much power in the hands of one man. Therefore, the Madisonian model called for both protections against mass democracy and limits on governmental power.
The Framers were clearly pulled in two different directions when inventing the presidency.6 They wanted to give the executive enough “energy” to act and yet not enough to endanger liberty or promote tyranny. Thus, the president has two types of power: formal, the ability to command, and informal, the ability to persuade. The president’s formal powers are limited and (often) shared. The president’s informal powers are a function of skill, situation, and political time
From 1969 through 1993, we saw the Republicanization of the White House (Republicans controlled the White House twenty of the twenty-four years) and the Democratization of the Congress. This institutionalizes divided government. Divided government makes the already fragmented system of government divisive, and thus it is less likely to produce the cohesion and cooperation necessary for the branches to work together.
Presidential leadership does not entirely rest on the president’s shoulders. As James MacGregor Burns notes, “Great leaders require great followers.” There are five key tasks in followership:
- commitment, support for the goals and values of the community;
- idea generation: creative problem solving and the percolation of ideas and pressure up to the top;
- competence: a degree of professionalism and skill;
- informed criticism: knowledge matched with the ability to disagree agreeably; and
- self-management, self-reliance, independence and self-control.
Being a leader in the United States is somewhat akin to trying to herd cats.
Presidential Power-Maximizing Strategies
President Woodrow Wilson said, “The President is at liberty, both in law and in conscience, to be as big a man as he can… His capacity will set the limit.”
Beyond question, the most important “power” a president can have is to present to the public a clear and compelling vision. A well-articulated, meaningful, positive vision that builds upon the building blocks of the past, addresses needs and hopes of the present, and portrays a hopeful, optimistic image of a possible future opens more doors to presidential leadership than all the skills and resources combined.
A visionary leader gives direction to an organization, gives purpose to action. Visionary leadership charts a course for action. They are both instruments for change, and catalysts of change.
As leadership expert Burt Nanus of the University of Southern California writes, “There is no more powerful engine driving an organization toward excellence and long-range success than an attractive worthwhile, achievable vision of the future, widely shared.”
Ronald Reagan was able to mobilize and inspire his followers because he was skilled at presenting his vision to the public. In contrast, George H. W. Bush, who admitted he wasn’t big on “that vision thing,” was a singularly uninspiring officeholder, and weeks after leaving office, he had all but faded from political memory.
The president also needs a high level of political acumen:
- a good sense of timing (to know when an issue is “ripe”—when to move, when to hold back);
- task competence;
- a power sense;
- situational skills (crisis versus routine decision skills);
- policy skills (to develop sound workable programs); and
- political savvy (to love playing politics, as FDR did, or not hate politics, as Nixon did).
To be successful, presidents also need people, skills. Presidents must know how to persuade, bargain, cajole and co-opt.
In order to control the agenda, presidents need to be the center-of-attention. And as “celebrities,” they are able to grab media coverage. A president with a commanding presence (Reagan), an empathetic style (Clinton), and a well-articulated message (Obama) can use to their advantage the opportunity granted only to a sitting president.
The “when” of politics matters greatly. As James P. Pfiffner points out, “power is not automatically transferred, but must be seized. Only the authority of the presidency is transferred on January 20; the power of the presidency—in terms of effective control of the policy agenda—must be consciously developed.” Presidents are more likely to propose new programs in their first year in office than at any other time. Their success rate with Congress in the first year is usually the highest of their term. The irony here, as Paul Light points out, is that presidents are at their strongest when they are least knowledgeable.
Paul Light recognizes this when he writes of how a president’s power is high during the early stages of his term but, due to what he calls “the cycle of decreasing influence,” will erode over time. Though the president’s “cycle of increasing effectiveness” makes him more skilled or adept later, over time his power declines.
When a president is most capable, he is least powerful, and when he is least capable, he is most powerful.
The president’s top job is to articulate and promote a vision for the nation’s future. Presidents must identify the national purpose, then move the machinery of government in support of that vision.
Reagan’s conservatism helped him develop a clear vision, a policy agenda, and an action program. In contrast with the ideologues, Bill Clinton, a political centrist, attempted to re-create himself on every issue. While it may be easier for political moderates to get elected, it may be harder for them to set visions and govern.
The model on which the American system of government was founded is based on consensus and coalition building (see my post on the Government Shutdown Revisited for more on this). Consensus means agreement about ends; coalitions are the means by which those ends are achieved.
Getting elected requires the development of an “electoral coalition”; governing requires the development of a “governing coalition.” These may be very different, even contradictory things. This difference between electoral and governing coalitions was noted by James MacGregor Burns, who has written that “there’s an increasing disparity between the tests for winning office and what’s required in governing. The kinds of quick, dexterous ploys, mainly public relations ploys, that are called for in public campaigning are a very far cry from the very solid coalition building that is needed to make this system of ours work.”
During the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Obama made great political mileage out of saying that we were not a Blue nation or Red nation, but one nation. And when he was elected, he promised a more bipartisan brand of politics. Yet, on those few occasions when he did constructively reach out to the Republican opposition, he was quickly rebuffed, drowning his bipartisan efforts in a sea of political polarization.
Between 1953 and 1965 (excluding only 1958) the average yearly presidential Gallup poll approval rating hovered at 60 percent or better. But starting in 1966, roughly the time when the most recent era of “failed presidents” begins, the level of popular support declines dramatically. Presidents who attained a 50 percent support level were unusual.
Obsession with image has forced presidents to campaign 365 days a year—and to attempt to govern in a campaign mode and constantly paint pretty pictures for public consumption.
Walter Mondale may be partially correct when he says that the electronic media is largely to blame for turning the presidency into the nation’s “fire hydrant.” but the media are also a source of presidential power. There are times when the media serves as the lapdog for the president, and at other times, a watchdog, and at still other times, an attack dog. If a president does not actively use the media, he may become their victim.
In recent years, presidents have spent less time “going Washington” and more time “going public.” The inside bargaining skills necessary to cut deals have been replaced by or supported by efforts at self-dramatization.
Barack Obama, facing a Congress controlled by Democrats, had an extraordinarily successful first year. He was successful over 96 percent of the time in getting Congress to pass legislation he favored. This was the highest success rate in the past fifty years, topping Lyndon Johnson (93 percent) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (89 percent). Can presidents lead Congress? Yes, but not often, and not for long. A mix of skill, circumstances, luck, popularity, party support, timing, and resources need to converge if the syncopation of the branches is to occur.
How Presidents Take Action
Using executive orders, memoranda, signing statements, and a variety of other administrative devices, presidents have been able to make policy without and sometimes against the will of Congress. This form of unilateral power gives the president the ability to impose his will in the absence of congressional approval and, with the support of the Supreme Court, which has held that executive orders have, under most circumstances, the full force of the law.
Originally, the executive order was intended for rather minor administrative and rule-making functions, to help the nation’s chief administrative officer administer the laws of the nation more efficiently and effectively. However, over time, the executive order has become an important and sometimes controversial tool enabling the president to make policy without the consent of Congress as required by the Constitution.
Presidents have used executive orders to implement some very controversial policies. In 1942, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese-American citizens in detention centers. In 1948, Harry S. Truman integrated the military. In 2001, President Bush issues a series of orders aimed at undermining terrorist organizations in the United States and abroad.
A president operates under a four-year time restraint; the bureaucracy has no such time constraint. The old saying “Presidents come and go but bureaucrats stay and stay” speaks volumes to the different time frames under which the president and bureaucracy operate.
Notorious Clinton political consultant Dick Morris describes the bureaucratic essence, “The permanent bureaucracy of the executive branch of a democratic government is dedicated to a single mission: to change nothing.”
Making the Presidency Effective and Accountable
What do we want of our presidents? Is the current, inhibited state of presidential power/leadership acceptable, or do we want to trade in the eighteenth-century Constitution for a newer, more streamlined model, one perhaps better suited to the demands of the twenty-first century?
Burns noted, “We search eagerly for leadership yet seek to cage and tame it;” but “power, if it be exercised wisely and in the interests of the people, cannot be so harnessed nor so liberated as to make it either ineffectual or dangerous.”
Just as Abraham Lincoln gave us a succinct, eloquent definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” so too did one of America’s other Mt. Rushmore leaders give us an eloquent, even simpler definition of democratic leadership. Thomas Jefferson believed that the primary duties of a leader in a democracy were “to inform the minds of the people, and to follow their will.”
Our desire for strong presidential leadership seems contrary to the goal of holding presidents accountable. Leadership implies power; accountability implies limits. Paradoxes and contradictions aside, accountability is a fundamental piece of the democratic puzzle.
James Madison believed elections provided the “primary check on government” and the separation of powers (“ambition will be made to counteract ambition”) plus “auxiliary precautions” would take care of the rest.
A successful president must have character and competence. Character without competence (resources, skill, power) gives us noble but ineffective leaders; competence without character may lead to government by demagogues.
The American presidency, while the subject of much criticism and disappointment, has lasted for over two hundred years. The system created by Madison and the other Founders has lasted more or less in tact for an amazingly long time by comparative standards. But being president is often like running in the sand; no matter how much energy you expend, you get nowhere slowly. Presidents rarely get to run on cinder tracks. In the United States, the president may be in office, but he is not necessarily in power.
The president must be a leader, but not just any kind of leader. Presidents must have the power to do good, but the system of checks and balances is important to put a halt to presidents whose actions may be suspect. Presidents need the power to achieve the ideals grounded in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, but the citizen needs the separation of powers to control abuse. Perhaps that is why, as messy, confusing, frustrating, and aggravating as the separation of powers can be, it may still offer us the best available model for governing.
To replace the cynicism that has torn us apart, we need a sense of national identity that can bring us together. The needs of individualism (1980s-1990s) and of community (1960s) must be brought into balance. As citizens we must lower our political expectations and increase our political knowledge; we must embrace our diversity and build on our dreams. We must become a nation again.