The Power of the American President to Persuade - Case Study Example

The Power of the American President is to Persuade Introduction On the surface and to most Americans, the President is the most powerful figure in America who derives their unilateral powers from the Constitution and runs the country as they please. The reality is quite different, at least according to Richard Neustadt. In their 1960 book that has since become a modern classic in American politics, Presidential Power and the Modern President, Neustadt argues that a president derives their authority not only from the Constitution, but also from their persuasive abilities and the prestige associated with the presidency [ CITATION Neu60 \l 1033 ]. The power to persuade is arguably the most important power of a president and the one to which Neustadt devotes much of their book. This paper discusses the presidential power of persuasion in view of recent presidents. The paper first justifies the need for a president to persuade. It then proceeds to discuss instances where the power of persuasion has worked and where it has failed before the author gives their concluding thoughts on the subject. In exercising their power of persuasion, a president is constrained by other centres of power such as the Supreme Court and the Congress [ CITATION Dye11 \l 1033 ]. Justification for the Power of Persuasion Several factors in the American political arena necessitate a president’s possession of the power of persuasion. First, the powers of the government of the United States are diffused in the three branches of the federal government and a multitude of other institutions and agencies at the federal, state and local government levels [ CITATION Dye11 \l 1033 ]. Thus, governmental powers are not only separated, but also, and more importantly, shared. Power sharing is good for any democracy such as America: it avoids the situation where too much power is vested in a person, office or institution, making the power highly susceptible to abuse. Power sharing introduces the necessary checks and balances among the various power holders. However, the separation and sharing of governmental power creates practical challenges to the president when it comes to getting things done. The various branches, institutions and agencies of government pursue different, and sometimes competing, interests. Under these circumstances, a president cannot rely solely on the powers the Constitution vest in them; they must be able to influence the various government actors to support their causes that are assumed to promote the interest of the public. The president is responsible for initiating federal policy on various matters of national significance such as healthcare, education and foreign relations[ CITATION Dye11 \l 1033 ]. A policy provides a framework within which the federal government approaches the particular matter that is the concern of the policy. However, the legislative authority of the federal government, including the enactment of federal policies initiated by the Executive, rests with the Congress. The policy priorities and concerns of the two branches of the federal government are not always the same. Therefore, whether or not the Congress passes a policy depends, to a large extend, on the ability of the President to persuade both houses of Congress on the need and importance of the policy. Compared to the Congress’ legislative “power”, the “powers” of the presidency as set out in Article II of the Constitution are vague [ CITATION Pee10 \l 1033 ]. The result is that the constitution portrays a president who appears more powerful than they are. Therefore, the President cannot rely on their Constitutional power alone to govern the country. Rather, they must possess considerable persuasion skills to be able to win the support of other equally powerful government actors, some of whom their powers are much clearer than those of the presidency. Meanwhile, time and again, the president will need to win the support of their Cabinet on several matters of national significance. The support of the entire Cabinet is important in light of the principle of collective responsibility that requires that the whole Cabinet be bound by its decisions. Instances where Persuasion has Worked The one area in which the presidential power of persuasion had played out more fully is in shaping public opinion on matters of national and international importance. Over the years, successive presidents have perfected the art of fashioning the opinions of Americans by appealing directly to them. For instance, Reagan “went over the heads” of Congress when he attempted to obtain support for his legislative agenda from the Americans. However, it was Theodore Roosevelt who first exploited the power of the public opinion in advancing the public interest. The practice of the president to overpass Congress and appeal directly to the people led Roosevelt to describe the presidency as a pulpit for bullying [ CITATION Dye11 \l 1033 ]. President Barrack Obama is on record for effectively using State of the Union addresses to garner public support for his programs [ CITATION Pee10 \l 1033 ]. For instance, according to a January 2010 survey by CBS News, public approval for Obama’s major plans on job creation and health care rose dramatically following his 2010 State of the Union address. According to the critics of presidential persuasion, however, the opinion poll was not accurate measure of the effectiveness of the power of persuasion. The critics argued that the improved approval ratings were the result of a short-lived bump among the Americans who watched the address. Even then, a small proportion of the American electorate watch state of the union addresses. For instance, only 48 million out of the 230 million voters watched the 2010 address. These criticisms notwithstanding, the role of persuasion in securing public support cannot be denied. Obama's persuasive efforts resulted in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), popularly known as ObamaCare that the President assented into law in March 2010. A week later, the President signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act into law. Together, the two statutes represent the greatest overhaul of the American healthcare system since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid Acts in 1965[ CITATION Mac14 \l 1033 ]. However, soon after it was signed into law, ObamaCare became the centre of controversy involving the federal government, the Supreme Court and the state governments [ CITATION Cau13 \l 1033 ]. The law requires that states expand the Medicaid program as a precondition for the continued funding of the program by the federal governments, something the states are opposed to. As a result, the states moved to the Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the law. In June 2012, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling in favour of the states saying that it was unconstitutional for the law to force states to expand Medicaid and peg future funding for that expansion. These events demonstrate how the presidential power of persuasion can be constrained Supreme Court rulings. Earlier in the second half of the twentieth century, President Harry Truman was able to successfully persuade the public and Congress to back the war effort in Korea. The accomplishment was a major feat for Truman given that America was barely five years out of a devastating Second World War[ CITATION Jun10 \l 1033 ]. The country was heavily in debt, and the American public were dissatisfied with Truman's policy of appeasement towards China. Despite, the prevailing circumstances, Americans threw their weight behind their president. Polling data indicated that 80-90% of Americans supported Truman's decision to intervene in Korea. However, more surprising was the swift shift in public opinion on the war: about six months into the war, two-thirds wanted America to withdraw its troops from Korea, and 50% of them believed that Truman should not have sent troops to Korea. The change in public opinion coincided with Congress' anger at Truman’s tolerance of Communism in Asia. Instances where Persuasion has failed In 1957, the Black American community in Little Rock, Arkansas moved to the Supreme Court over discrimination against black students whom Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, had refused admission to a central school in Little Rock[ CITATION Neu60 \l 1033 ]. The Court decided the Brown vs. The Board of Education case in favour of the black community and demanded that black students be admitted to schools in Little Rock. The board embarked on making the necessary arrangements to be able to receive African American students. However, on the first day that the African American students were scheduled to report to the school, governor ordered the National Guard to barricade the school and prevent black students from accessing it. The Supreme Court ruling was of no consequence to the governor. He argued that had the black students been allowed into the school, the residents of Little Rock would have reacted violently. A stalemate ensued between the governor and the black community of Little Rock. Feeling obliged by the Constitution to safeguard the rights of all Americans, President Eisenhower intervened in an effort to end the stalemate [ CITATION Neu60 \l 1033 ]. However, when he met Governor Faubus, President Eisenhower failed to convince the governor that integrating black students in the white schools in the Little Rock area was good for both the state and the nation. While the president had rightly interpreted his responsibility to protect the interests of all Americans and execute all laws, he did not realise that the performance of those responsibilities went beyond the Constitution. Besides citing the Constitution and relevant laws, the president needed to have possessed negotiation skills. In a bid to get the American public and Congress to support the Iraq war, the former president George W. Bush resorted to the power of persuasion, but with no success [CITATION Fis \l 1033 ]. Following the United States’ swift military success in Iraq, teams of experts embarked on in-depth studies to discover Iraq's deadly weapons that the president had used to justify the war against Iraq. The president had claimed that the weapons posed an immediate and direct threat to the people of America. Several months after the president had announced victory, very little evidence of deadly weapons in Iraq was found. Suspicion that the Bush administration had deceived the American public, Congress and America's allies became rife. While the Bush administration may have failed to get Americans and Congress to support the war against Iraq, they were able to woo the media. The administration used the media to supply a steady flow of misleading information. In this regard, the Bush administration may be said to have successfully convinced the media to cover the war, but with the intent of misleading the public. For decades, the same-sex debate has remained a thorny one with one the American public divided between supporters and opposers of same-sex marriage [ CITATION Pee10 \l 1033 ]. Politicians and other political figures have played a major role in shaping public opinion on the matter and presidents have not been left behind[ CITATION Lax09 \l 1033 ]. A host of former presidents and vice-presidents have expressed their support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage – Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Al Gore among others. Although President Barrack Obama’s stand on the matter has wavered throughout his political career, he has growingly supported same-sex marriage. The culmination of Obama’s support for same-sex marriage came in May 2012 when he made his support public, becoming the first sitting president to do so. Obama then vowed to see to it, during his presidency, that the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 is amended to compel the federal government to recognise same-sex marriage. Currently, DOMA only recognises only marriage between two people of different sex, although various states, through their marriage laws, do recognise same-sex marriage. DOMA denies same-sex spouses certain rights and privileges that are reserved for heterosexual spouses. In a rare convergence of presidential persuasion and judicial power [ CITATION McK12 \l 1033 ], since the 1972 ruling on Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court has delivered several rulings that have challenged the constitutionality of DOMA [ CITATION But98 \l 1033 ]. Conclusion For the purposes of performing their functions, the formal presidential powers are inadequate. The inadequacy of formal powers, coupled with the dynamics of American politics, demands that the President of the United States resort to the informal power of persuasion in order to mobilise various government actors towards the promotion of the public interest. However, in exercising their power of persuasion, the president encounters considerable opposition from other arms of government, notably Congress and the Supreme Court, hence mixed results. Despite the challenges, however, the presidential power remains crucial in shaping American politics [ CITATION Dye11 \l 1033 ]. References CITATION Neu60 \l 1033 : , (Neustadt, 1960), CITATION Dye11 \l 1033 : , (Dye, et al., 2011), CITATION Pee10 \l 1033 : , (Peele & Bailey, 2010), CITATION Mac14 \l 1033 : , (Mach & Fernandez, 2014), CITATION Cau13 \l 1033 : , (Cauchi, 2013), CITATION Jun10 \l 1033 : , (Jung, 2010), CITATION Fis \l 1033 : , (Fisher, 2003), CITATION Lax09 \l 1033 : , (Lax, 2009), CITATION McK12 \l 1033 : , (McKeever & Davies, 2012), CITATION But98 \l 1033 : , (Butler, 1998), Read More