Journal Entries #8

Presidential Power and Its Limits As you can see, presidents have power (or can abuse power) and are also limited. Here are some common themes mentioned by presidential scholars. Note that presidents have both formal power (granted by the Constitution) and informal power (based on precedent, popularity, and talent for persuasion). Some highlights are below:

• The president's role as party leader can be both a source of power and a limitation. It is a source of power when the president's party is relatively unified and can back a president's legislative agenda. However party control has been in decline for several decades and both presidents and legislators can be independent of the party or some cases exert control over what party officials are chosen. Members of congress are often wanting to be seen as more independent by voters.

• Mass media. Mass media enables the president to use "the bully pulpit" to persuade citizens to support initiatives in ways that did not exist prior to the 1930s (FDR's fireside chats on radio helped to sell his New Deal to the nation). In the age of the internet and television the potential for influence is even more so. But, and there is big but, for all the reasons we looked at with the media and the Time news magazine covers, popularity can also sink quickly. The system favors those who are photogenic and able to perform well. Those attributes may exclude qualified candidates.

• Overly high expectations. Public expectations of what presidents can accomplish are unrealistically high. Presidents often get both more praise and more blame than they really deserve. For instance, a president may share blame with congress or the bureaucracy may play a significant role in a poor policy choice. Issues are complex and not easily fixed by any branch of government, let alone a single individual, even if that individual is the symbolic face of the nation.

• Popularity. High poll numbers showing support for a president means more people want to ride the presidential coattails and support presidential policy choices. Witness President Bush's popularity in the post 9/11 2002 midterm elections. And compare 2002 with the last years of the Bush presidency. Republican members of congress

charted their own reelection course and even voted against the president to claim some independence in the hope of being reelected.

• Interest groups. The power of interest groups limits presidential power. Presidents are often forced to bargain with various interests to achieve goals. Depending on their particular talents some are more effective at this than others (for example President Johnson moving Civil Rights legislation through congress). Some presidents are very good at twisting arms in Congress and putting on pressure.

• In a certain sense, where the Constitution is vague, presidents can assert a prerogative to a previously unclaimed power as the Chief Executive. Unless the courts or congress push back, presidential power is expanded. This is often tied to times of crisis.

• The president oversees a massive Executive Branch bureaucracy. Bureaucrats, even those in the executive branch, can resist or slow their implementation for presidential directives they don't favor .

• In the presidential role of Commander in Chief, presidents have initiated military action without the approval of Congress though the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war while the president is Commander in Chief. (Here is a Wikipedia overview of the War Powers Act passed in 1973 during controversary over the Vietnam conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution Links to an external site.The act requires presidents to inform congress within 48 hours of committing US troops and requires a congressional authorization for commitments of more than 90 days. In general, presidents give lip service to the act and change the language slightly so as to mostly comply with the spirit but not the letter of the act because they regard it as unconstitutional. Congress meanwhile tolerates some presidential neglect of the act believing that they have more power with it than without. Neither side has mounted a legal challenge on its constitutionality because they don't want to risk losing power. Learn about the controversy over the War Powers Act and President Obama's Libya strategy click here: http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/whatever-happened-to- the-war-powers-act Links to an external site. ) Presidents also have wide latitude in determining foreign policy. Still presidents can face constraints in negotiating international agreements. For instance negotiating a global warming agreement would be, as one scholar put it, "playing a two-tier chess game" in trying to reach a compromise,

but also having to keep in mind what would be accepted by interest groups back home.

• Presidents appoint judges, ambassadors, cabinet officials etc. Many appointments are subject to Senate confirmation.

• Presidents can veto legislation. The line item veto (i.e. to veto parts of bills rather than whole bills) to attack pork spending has been sought by presidents of both parties, but each party is reluctant to give a leader of the other party that degree of power.