The Presidency

The United States established a political organization, no where in the world does a nation run quite like the United States. Other nations have tried and failed to follow the American system of government. They have failed because America was formed by the people so the people are supposed to run the government, but does that really happen?

The documents in the Woll book cover the nature, basis and implications of the power of the Presidency. To become President one is indirectly elected, the United States Electoral College picks the President. The President does not run everything by himself he uses the cabinet, the Executive Office of the President, and the White House staff to assist him in the day-to-day running of the government.

Out of all the governing forces in the United States the Presidency is the most popular and well known. Almost every American knows who the current President and Vice President are but they have no idea who Steny Hoyer and John Boehner are (the majority and minority leaders). Americans place their hopes on the Presidents shoulders, if he succeeds he becomes an American hero but if he fails he lets down the American people.

In Document 44, the Federalist 70, Alexander Hamilton believes that in order to run a smooth executive there needs to be “unity; duration; and adequate provision for its support; competent powers” (Federalist 70, Woll, 256). Unity is emphasized because Hamilton feels that it is necessary for the smooth running of a nation. Of course having a unified nation allows for the government to run smoother but at what cost? Does unifying a nation mean that some American voices are not heard?

The President shall have the executive power, he is to be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has the ability to make treaties, he can appoint judges to the Supreme Court, recommend legislation to Congress, veto legislations, and so on. “It may be argued that one of the decisive forces in the shaping of American democracy has been the extraordinary capacity of the presidency for strong, able, popular leadership” (The Presidency--Focus Of Leadership, Woll, 259).

What exactly does the President lead? He is the leader of the Executive Branch, leader of the forces of peace and war, leader of Congress, leader of his party, leader of the public opinion, leader of the free nations, and leader of the rituals of American democracy according to Clinton Rossiter. Rossiter feels “the President is easily the most influential leader of opinion in this country” (The Presidency—Focus Of Leadership, Woll, 262). However, I feel that this is not presently true. Either because most Americans do not have any idea about what is going on in Washington until it affects them or because President George Bush’s ratings are at an all time low.

Rossiter examines what kind of leader the President needs to be. “The president that is to say, can lead us only in the direction we are accusation to travel” (The Presidency—Focus Of Leadership, Woll, 263). Meaning the President can only try to change so much, he can change what needs to be changed in the eyes of the people. But trying to reform to system of government will lead to an uproar among the people.

How does one judge if the President will do a good or bad job? James Barber says that in order to know what kind of leader the President will be one has to look at his personality, what happens in the early states of his presidency, how dynamic the President is, and look to see if he actually enjoys political life. Barber believes that the best way to predict the next four years of a President is to look at how he governs. He says that “the personal past foreshadows the presidential future” (The Presidential Character, Woll, 278). That statement seems to hold true in most cases. If someone running for election is falling behind he is likely to say what the people want to hear rather than what he believes in. The Presidency is a popularity contest, which contestant is capable of winning over the majority of the American people.

“The Presidency is a peculiar office. The founding fathers left it extraordinarily loose in definition, partly because they trusted George Washington to invest a tradition as he went along” (The Presidential Character, Woll, 269). Because the so loosely defined the Presidency it has been characterized by the previous men governing the United States. “Jefferson reached out to Congress to put together the beginnings of political parties; Jackson’s dramatic force extended electoral partisanship to its mass base; Lincoln vastly expanded the administrative reach of the office; Wilson and the Roosevelts showed its rhetorical possibilities” (The Presidential Character, Woll, 269-270).

Document 49, The Presidency and Political Parties, by Sidney Milkis shows that recently Presidents have been depending on administrative government not party government. What is a modern President and how did the Presidency get there? According to Milkis, “the institutionalization of the modern presidency, arguably the most significant constitutional legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, ruptured severely the limited, albeit significant, bond that linked presidents to their parties” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 282). Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal “fostered instead a program that would help the president to govern in the absence of party government” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 284).

Franklin D. Roosevelt laid the ground works for the modern presidency. The modern presidency was created to make, “a more liberal America” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 285). Lyndon Johnson tried to generate the Great Society by doing so it, “marked a significant extension of programmatic liberalism and accelerated the effort of transcend partisan politics” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 285). In trying to produce the Great Society Johnson moved away from party government to administrative government politics.

Richard Nixon’s presidency “entailed the creation of a conservative administrative presidency” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 286). Milkis shows how each presidency in a way awaits the actions of the next President. Now whether or not that is true though out the history of the presidency it is clear that,” Roosevelt’s presidency anticipated the Great Society, Johnson’s presidency anticipated the administrative presidency of Richard Nixon” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 286). But the Watergate scandal during Nixon’s presidency caused the expansion of the modern presidency to enter a state of isolationism. Which lead too, “a more national and issue-oriented party system to develop, forging new links between presidents and their parties” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 287) during Regan’s presidency. Regan differed from the Presidents before him. He broke the chain of modern presidency and, “identified closely with his party” (The Presidency and Political Parties, Woll, 287).

When does the expansion of Presidential powers turn into a dictatorship? Document 51 by John Dean expands on the idea that intrusting the President with these “awesome powers” could cause a “constitutional dictator” (Presidential Powers in times of Emergency: Could Terrorism result in a Constitutional Dictator?, Woll, 303). In times of national crisis should the President be able to fully exercise his emergency powers? What will happen to America’s democracy during a time of nation crisis? As history proves, “democracy works better in times of peace” (Presidential Powers in times of Emergency: Could Terrorism result in a Constitutional Dictator?, Woll, 304). However, America is rarely in a state of peace for very long. Either America is angering another nation or another nation or group of people is trying to harm America. So then what constitutes as a national crisis? Is it war, terrorism, or something unforeseen?

The founding fathers laid the ground work for the presidency and the past 43 Presidents have added on to what the founding fathers said. Americans bestow their trust upon the President, if he betrays that trust it can shatter Americans faith in the government. Should Americans trust the politicians they elect, but aren’t politicians corrupt? Is the President different from other politicians or are they the same?

-Harbhajan