The Necessity for a Presidency

Within the lifespan of the current teenage generation, the notion of a “strong” leader has been at the very least, debatable. However, this concept is nothing new, for in fact it was a vital component of the thoughts of our founding fathers which is encapsulated within the Constitution. What is it then that makes a leader a good one? In a democracy, what is a leader? And what powers do they contain? These questions have been thought about through great length in America. We are a unique country whose ideals consistently remain in accordance to freedom and the power to choose. Yet, without some form of leadership, anarchy will prevail, which is why the founding fathers came upon the agreement of the presidential office. This unique job could be argued to be what defines America: a country with power and freedom, while still maintaining control over the populace on some level.

In today’s government, it is impossible for others in Washington to do their job without the consent and assurance of the president. In Article 46 (“Presidential Power” by Richard E. Neustadt) , this notion is very much stressed. It explains that the president faces demands from several areas: executive officialdom, Congress, partisans, the citizens at large, and from abroad. With this in mind, one can agree that the office of the president is anything but easy. Neustadt then moves on to say that the president’s demands and power will most likely not change, unless an unlimited war or deep depression occurs. However, this article does not elaborate on the possibility of such occurrences. What would then happen? The reason why this notion is stressed is because of the current economic status of the United States. Many politicians now sense that a depression is not a far-fetched concept and therefore we must consider this notion a real possibility.

What Article 46 does not explain, Article 51 (“Presidential Powers in Times of Emergency: Could Terrorism Result in a Constitutional Monarchy?” by John W. Dean) elaborates on. Essentially, it explains that a constitutional dictatorship is possible in a time of turmoil. While this article uses the war on terrorism as the possibility, the current economic crisis is what makes this concept even more frightening. Democracy, it explains, works best during times of peace. This is because there can be debate, compromise, and deliberation, creating a fair and equal government. When a crisis occurs within a country that endangers the people in any way, they hide inside of their leader, so to speak. Because of this, a leader can essentially be given whatever power they ask of. This is what makes this concept so terrifying. While Article 51 barely glosses over the dictatorships that have arisen in other countries, one must view these to understand the possibility. The Nazi reign in Germany just may be the best example. However, what John Dean is most emphasizing is the possibility of a dictatorship in America. Finally, he concludes that the possibility of a constitutional dictatorship is not a far-off concept and is very much a possibility. Such major crisis’s as the Civil War, the two World Wars, and the Great Depression have created stronger, more powerful presidents. Dean explains this by saying, “Past presidents- principally Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt- by exercising their powers in time of emergency, have expanded their authority as necessary to meet the emergencies they faced.” (“Presidential Power In Time of Emergency: Could Terrorism Result in a Constitutional Monarchy?,” Woll, p. 304) Luckily, America has not faced such a problem that would develop a dictatorship however there is a possibility for one in the future.

This article displays an interesting concept that is not often thought about for many Americans. Dictatorship is generally a notion that is associated with one of the two extremes: fascism and communism, both of which America has fought against. However, one must always consider the possibility, especially when it is believed that the empire of America has been crumbling slowly during the past few decades. What will come next?

We must then think about what leaders to choose to prevent such a catastrophe. The next question that we come to ask is what makes a leader, or more specifically a president, good? Article 47 (“The Presidential Character” by James David Barber) explains simply that it is the personality of the president that is most important. While this notion may sound simple, the article moves on by giving a list (a tactic that Barber appears to like) of why the personality “shapes performance.” First, a president’s personality is important in connection with his behavior as well as nontrivial matters. Second, his personality is patterned, meaning that his most important aspects which include character, world view, and style all correlate. Third, personality is important in terms of the power and expectations he faces. And finally, the best way to predict his character, world view, and style is to see how they were all originally put together in the first place. While Barber does bring up an interesting point on how to choose a president, when trying to actually do this, it seems impossible as well as trivial. What makes the modern American choose a president is not exactly based on these four concepts. It is by his overall beliefs and stances and what will benefit the people the most. The article then moves on to explain the four personality types of a president (active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive, and passive-negative). Activity and Passivity explain how much energy a person invests in the presidency, while Positive and Negative explains how he feels about what he does. According to the article, these are important characteristics of a president. However, this list is yet even more insignificant. Any voter will assume that their preferred candidate will spend as much time as possible attempting to fix or better the country and enjoy it. Therefore, while it may be interesting to view in history, these lists are overall irrelevant for the modern voter. In today’s world, choosing a president is for the most part fairly simple; one decides on the candidate based on their beliefs.

Article 48 (“Leadership by Definition: Reflections on George W. Bush’s Political Stance” by Stepehn Skowronek) gives us an interesting concept that is not necessarily the primary reason why a voter would choose a candidate, but has a very large effect. Skowronek plays with the notion of “definition.” He explains, “Definition conveys certainty and self-confidence. The posture is that of a man of set mind, one who knows what to do and leads by doing it.” (“Leadership by Definition: Reflection on George W. Bush’s Political Stance”, Woll, p. 281) Skowronek uses this example through the presidency of George W. Bush. Essentially, he explains that what Bush lacks in smarts, he gains in certainty and self-confidence. He is a stalwart, or someone who stands firmly by their beliefs. However, Skowronek does leave out a little information that could elaborate on this notion, for example, Bush’s former 2004 presidential election opponent, John Kerry. Kerry was known as being “wishy-washy” on certain topics. He lacked the firm stance on his beliefs that Bush was easily able to stick with. Some may argue that this is what cost him the presidency. Skowronek also leaves out much critique on Bush, almost leaving the reader to wonder what exactly his stance is on the president. While he does dabble in his opinion, for example he states, “I do not mean to ignore the irony that Bush’s vow introduced a book that was in fact, put together by others” (Leadership by Definition”, Woll, p. 280) he could have elaborated more, thus explaining the gullibility of the people. It sounded as though he was trying to get at that point, however did not quite get there.

The presidency is a complicated matter, whether it be choosing the president or choosing his powers. What is most important, and as Alexander Hamilton explains in his “Federalist 70’ (Article 44), is the president represents unity. While it is an imperfect system, it is an essential one. And as we have learned through the notion of a “democracy,” an imperfect system is not necessarily the wrong system.

-Emma