2.5 Theories of Presidential Power
Nuestadt-Presidential Power
"Presidential power is the power to persuade."
Presidents are expected to do much more than their authority allows them to do. Persuasion and bargaining are the means that presidents use to influence policy. Not only do presidents need to bargain to influence other branches of government (particularly Congress), but presidents also must bargain to influence the executive branch itself; cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and individual bureaucrats all have leverage that they can use against the president, requiring presidents to persuade even the executive branch, not merely command it.
http://www.cybersisman.com/civicshonors/unit2/neustadt.pdf Links to an external site.
http://wikisum.com/w/Neustadt:_Presidential_power Links to an external site.
Schlesinger-The Imperial Presidency
The author wrote the Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the U.S. Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits. A presidency becomes imperial when it relies on powers beyond those allowed by the Constitution. The Constitution established three separate branches of government not for efficiency but to avoid the arbitrary exercise of power. The government outlined by the Constitution was to replace and improve upon the imperial executive government of British King George III Links to an external site..The book links the President’s accumulation of foreign powers during wartimes to the accretion of domestic powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imperial_Presidency Links to an external site.
Skowronek-Presidential Time
Skowronek introduces the notions of "political time" and "secular time" to illustrate the recurring patterns of presidential politics. Since presidents operate within an institutional context largely determined by their predecessors, their leadership efforts are part of an evolving, time-sensitive drama over which they often struggle to gain mastery.
One of the most notable patterns to emerge in presidential politics, which parallels secular changes in the nation in general, is the shift from a presidential strategy based on interpersonal relationships among elites in Washington to a public support-motivated approach to politics.
Skowronek identifies four phases of this transformation: (How Presidents have led and their constraints)
1) Patrician politics (1789-1832) characterized by leaders who stood above faction and interest and governed on the strength of their personal reputation among notables;
2) Partisan politics (1832- 1900) in which leadership was a form of executive patronage to party factions and local machines;
3) Pluralist politics (1900- 1972) in which the rise of bureaucracy and institutional elites required complex bargaining and policy negotiations between competing interests; and
4) Plebiscitary politics (1972-present) characterized by more candidate-centered presidential campaigns and a greater emphasis on direct political relationships with the public at large.
Table One: Skowronek's Opportunity Structure Typology
|
President’s Political Identity
|
||
|
Previously Established
Commitments |
Opposed |
Affiliated |
|
Vulnerable
|
“Politics of Reconstruction”
|
“Politics of Disjunction"
|
|
Resilient
|
“Politics of Preemption”
|
“Politics of Articulation”
|
Politics of disjunction: This is the period when a long-standing political order is no longer capable of addressing the challenges facing the country. These leaders are caught between the demands of their supporters and their need to take actions their supporters oppose. The most recent example is Jimmy Carter; others include Hoover, Franklin Pierce, and John Quincy Adams. Not a distinguished list, but Skowronek argues it has less to do with their limitations then the reality that they were governing in impossible times. They could not satisfy the demands of their supporters, leaving them isolated and vulnerable to electoral defeat.
Politics of reconstruction: This is for the presidents who establish new political orders. After the politics of disjunction reveals the old order as incapable of governing any longer, a new order, which overturns the old order’s commitments, takes power. These presidents have enormous freedom to establish a new order, make new commitments, and exercise the enormous power of the presidency. Reagan was the most recent example, rejecting the values and programs of the New Deal coalition and establishing a new order. Other examples include FDR, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, and of course Washington. This would seem like a Presidential all-star team, but Skowronek states that they enjoyed an advantageous time in the sequence in which the collapse of a long-standing coalition allowed them relative freedom to use the full powers of their office to pursue their goals.
Politics of articulation: After the new order is established, follow-on presidents face a different set of challenges. They are charged with continuing the vision of their great predecessor – but there is discord among factions of the governing coalition over what that vision entails. Ultimately their decisions end up alienating substantial components of their support base. There are two prominent sub-groups. The first is the President who follows the coalition founder and is often seen as unable to stand in their predecessor’s footsteps (think Van Buren, Truman, and Bush 41). The later followers often vigorously attempt to renew the founder’s vision. Examples of this group include Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, LBJ, and Bush 43. This latter group has a disproportionate likelihood of engaging in wars of choice or other forms of international muscle flexing. There is usually one faction in the coalition with an expansive view of America in the world that the president needs to appease. These are the Presidents most likely to serve only one-term or to choose not to run for re-election. Since the establishment of a consistent two-party system (in the 1820s) only three won both of their Presidential elections (Grant, McKinley, and Bush 43.)
Politics of pre-emption: While there is a dominant order linked to one party, occasionally the other party elects a president (Andrew Johnson, Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, and Obama). These presidents usually distance themselves from the past failed order of their party – Clinton, claiming to chart a third way and avoiding the designation as a liberal. These presidents are less hemmed in by ideology and readily adopt policies from the dominant order. These presidents are frequently tarred as dishonest or tricky by their political opponents because of their ideological inconsistency (and consequent effective freedom to govern). Impeachment and other confrontations with the legislature appear more likely under these Presidents (Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton for example.) However many of them have served two terms. But, just as Clinton sought a “legacy,” many of this type of President try to find an over-arching issue with which to define their Presidency.
Read the analysis of the Obama Presidency (an opinion) to see where he will fall on the Skowronek Scale
http://freestaterblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/reconstructive-president-not-in-this.html Links to an external site. Links to an external site.
Trump and the Political Time Theory
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/opinion/trump-history-presidents.html Links to an external site.