The Presidency Carl D. Cavalli

Chapter Eight The Presidency Carl D. Cavalli

Learning Objectives After covering the topic the presidency, students should understand:

1. The origins and executive nature of the presidency and the roles played by presidents.

2. The sources of presidential power. 3. The organization of both the White House and the larger Executive

Branch. 4. The growth of presidential power and how that power has changed

over the past century.

Abstract1 The framers envisioned a presidency that left them concerned about

what they termed ‘‘energy in the executive.’’ In other words, they thought the presidency would not be powerful enough. Contemporary politicians and scholars present a very different view. They often debate whether or not the presidency has in fact become too powerful. Related to this shift in the views about power is a shift in what is perceived to be the main sources of presidential power. The framers created an of ce empowered by, and limited by, the Constitution. However, modern analysts see the of ce empowered by a very different and extra constitutional source the public.

Introduction The Second Branch?

The president is the head of the Executive Branch. By executive, we mean that it is the branch designed to carry out (or execute) policy. The framers clearly treated the executive as a secondary branch. It is discussed in Article II of the Constitution. Article I covers the Legislative Branch largely because they felt it would be the most powerful branch. It seems more the opposite today. How can this be so?

1 Portions of this chapter were originally included in Cavalli, Carl D. 2000. The Presidency. Lesson 10 in POLS 1101: American Government. University System of Georgia eCore™



asics Presidential Roles

It is best to begin exploring this question by reviewing the expectations placed on presidents. That is, what roles do they play in our system? Generally, they play two roles: Chief of State and the head of government.

Chief of State One role the president plays is that of chief of state, or national symbol.

The presidency is the only of ce in this country elected by the entire nation. Presidents have come to embody their symbolic role in many ways.

When Barak Obama deliverd his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, one of the rst things he said was We af rm the promise of our democracy. Is we his family? The White House? The federal government? No. His use of the term is a reference to the nation.

Presidents often claim to be a voice for the American people (e.g., see Barger, 1978, Teten, 2007). Whether this is true or not, their priorities do become our priorities—when a president suggests the nation focus on an issue (like civil rights or health care), we do engage in debate. We may not always agree with the president, but we do wind up discussing these issues as a nation.

In addition, presidential involvement in international affairs is the equivalent of American involvement. When the president signs an international agreement, America is committed to that agreement. When the president receives another nation’s ambassador, it is America recognizing the existence of that country.

Consider the following private presidential conversations that were recorded on Dictabelts in the White House. Is it just the president talking, or is it America talking?

ollowing the space ight of ajor Gordon Cooper on ay 1 , 1963, President John Kennedy called him and said, “We’re very proud of you, Major” (Miller Center, 2010a, emphasis added). On the birthday of famed poet Carl Sandburg, January 6, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson called Sandburg and said he wanted “to tell you how fortunate America was to have you with us” (Miller Center, 2010b, emphasis added).

176 The Basics of American Government



These conversations were not intended for public consumption, and so they provide us with good evidence that presidents often speak for all of America even in private moments. Of course, a glance at most public presidential addresses reveals the same character. You can see this by perusing the White House video ( and brie ng ( ng room) websites.

Head of Government The other role of the president is that of Chief Executive or chief

operating of cer of the United States. In this role, the president is recognized as the person atop the federal government’s policy-making team.

In a sense, the president as the head of government is in charge of the day-to-day operations of the United States government. The president is, of course, the person charged with carrying out the laws of the land (as noted earlier). The president is also charged with evaluating the laws and recommending changes.

Most of the legislative proposals that Congress works on actually originate in the Executive Branch. The executive departments and agencies charged with carrying out the laws will also evaluate those laws: Are the laws having their intended effect? Are any changes needed? If so, what? All of this information eventually ows back up to the president, who will in a very real sense act as chief legislator in addition to being the chief executive.

Shortly after speaking to Carl Sandburg, President Johnson also called Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy regarding civil rights legislation in the Senate. He said, “I want you to pull together those other Democrats and make them attend the meetings, make them keep their mouths shut, make them vote down the amendments, and get me a bill out on that oor ” (Miller Center, 2010c). Though seated in the White House, Johnson is clearly acting as a legislator during this phone call.

Chief Legislator entails more than just evaluating and recommending laws. The president also has the constitutional power to veto legislation. Congressional legislation must be submitted to the president for approval. The president can either sign it into law or veto it. If the president vetoes a bill, it is dead unless two-thirds of each house of Congress votes to override the veto (see Chapter 7). This action would enact the bill into law without presidential approval. It is hard enough to get suf cient votes to pass a bill in the rst place, so you can imagine the dif culty of trying to

177Chapter Eight: The Presidency



get two-thirds of each house to override a veto. The consequence is that, generally, nothing becomes law without the president’s approval!2

These roles are a lot to invest in one person. How does this compare to other nations? Who plays these roles in other countries? Compare the United States to the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, these roles are separated. The Queen acts as the ceremonial Chief of State, and the Prime Minister acts as the day-to-day head of government. In the United States, we combine them into one person, which would seem to make our presidents very powerful people. This statement is true, but the framers designed a system where one powerful executive does not go unchecked. We tether our presidents (that is, we limit their independence). They are tethered to Congress and the courts through checks and balances (see Chapter 2), and they are tethered to the public through elections (and politically through measures of public approval). In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister is tethered only to the majority party in the House of Commons, and the Queen is not tethered to anyone.

In some instances, we can actually see a combination of these two roles. Our recognition of presidents as national leaders leads us to allow them substantive powers.

Executive Orders As the head of government, the president supervises the Executive

Branch. This responsibility includes deciding how to execute the laws of the land.

Bolstered by the role of Chief of State, the president has a lot of authority. That authority is exercised through the issuance of executive orders. If, for example, the Executive Branch is charged with carrying out various programs called for by legislation, the president may issue executive orders directing whom to hire and how to disburse the appropriate funding. While divorced from formal congressional authorization, these orders carry the same of cial weight as laws and at times may be used by presidents in place of legislation in the face of an uncooperative Congress.

The effects of this kind of order may have profound consequences, not only for the Executive Branch, not only for the program involved, but also for the individuals hired and for the society at large. 2 There is a third possibility—the president may let a bill become law without signing it by letting it sit for 10 days. This option essentially says, “I don’t like this bill, but I don’t want to ght it.” It is not a commonly exercised option.

178 The Basics of American Government



The situation was true for one of the most famous executive orders in the post-World War II era: Executive Order #10952. With the order, President John F. Kennedy created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1961. It was charged with insuring that, in all contracts using federal funds, the contractors must take af rmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated fairly during employment, without regard to race, creed, color or national origin.

Executive Order #10952 marked the rst time the term af rmative action’’ was used by the federal government, putting its weight behind the cause of civil rights with consequences (and controversy) still felt today.

Executive Agreements An executive agreement is an agreement between the President of the

United States and the head of another country. While the president has the constitutional power to negotiate treaties with other countries, such treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Executive agreements, on the other hand, do not require any congressional approval (although any money or changes in the law that may be required to ful ll an agreement must be approved by Congress through the normal legislative process), yet they are recognized as having the same force of law as treaties. This recognition has been granted—and upheld by the courts—precisely because of the president’s standing as Chief of State. In other words, the president has the power to speak for the country and to commit its resources in an agreement with other nations. For example, despite an of cial policy of neutrality, President Franklin Roosevelt took it upon himself to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom to exchange U.S. warships for British bases during the opening months of World War II. At the time, there was no speci c legal or constitutional provision, empowering the president to do so. He justi ed his actions on the commander-in-chief and executive powers found in the Constitution, as well as a minor law permitting the president to dispose of obsolete military equipment. Congress eventually acquiesced to this by passing the Lend Lease Act of 1941, which permitted the president to lend defense articles’’ to any government whose defense the president judges vital to the defense of the United States.’’

Executive Privilege Executive privilege is the claim by presidents of their right to refuse

to hand over information requested by Congress. The logic is that the

179Chapter Eight: The Presidency



constitutional provision for separation of powers means that the Congress has no right to force the president to turn over information to them. It is most often used with the rationale of maintaining secrecy for purposes of national security.

In his battle with Congress over materials related to the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon tried to exert an absolute claim of executive privilege. In the case of United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that, while presidents do have a right under the separation of powers to claim executive privilege, the right is not absolute.

In 1998, Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled that executive privilege does not cover presidential conversations with White House aides absent any national security claims. In so ruling, she compelled reluctant presidential advisers to testify in the investigation into President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

More recently, the administration of President George W. Bush invoked claims of executive privilege on a number of occasions, including its refusal to disclose documents relating ice President Dick Cheney’s meetings with energy company executives during the administration’s development of energy policy proposals and its refusal to allow White House personnel to testify before Congress during the investigation into the ring of U.S. attorneys (e.g., see Holding, 2007).

hat a es a resident o erfu In one of the most famous explorations of presidential power, Richard

Neustadt (1990) claims that the constitutional powers of the president amount to no more than the powers of a clerk.

Remember, the framers designed the presidency as an of ce which merely carries out the laws passed by Congress. Yet, modern presidents are often referred to as the most powerful person on Earth. During the Cold War, presidents were referred to as the leaders of the free world.’’ This description sounds like a lot more than just a clerk. How can it be?

If Neustadt is correct, most presidential power does not come directly from the Constitution. It must come from somewhere else. An exploration of presidents’ constitutional and legal sources of power, along with their more political sources, may help clarify this confusion.

180 The Basics of American Government



Constitutional and Legal Power Sources These sources of power stem from either the Constitution itself or from

federal law.

The ice President The vice presidency is established in both Articles I and II of the

Constitution. Our rst vice president, John Adams, said, I am nothing. I may be everything.’’ The rst part of Adam’s lament is based on the lack of formal duties for vice presidents. This case was especially true in Adams’s day, because vice presidents were then the second-place nishers in the presidential elections—which meant they were the opposition as far as the new president was concerned. So, vice presidents were then largely isolated from their presidents. The 12th Amendment changed this situation by providing for the separate election of vice presidents, which grew into a system where vice presidents are largely elected with their own party’s presidential nominee.

The second part of Adams’s quote, I may be everything’’ is based on the vice president’s position as rst in the line of presidential succession. Should a president die, resign, or become incapacitated, it is the vice president who takes over as president. It has happened eight times in our nation’s history (eleven times, if you count the three times that recent vice presidents temporarily took charge as their presidents underwent medical procedures).

Today, vice presidents are on much friendlier terms with their presidents. They often play the part of trusted presidential advisers. More and more, vice presidents are charged with leading various presidential initiatives. For example, George W. Bush’s vice president, Dick Cheney, acted not only as a trusted advisor, but also led many of the administration’s policy initiatives, including those regarding energy and anti-terrorism policy. Cheney has been described by many as the most powerful vice president ever (Walsh, 2003, Kuttner, 2004), though recently some have speculated that his successor under President Obama, ice President Joe Biden may be as or more powerful (Hirsch, 2012, Rothkopf, 2013, McDuffee, 2013). Biden is also a trusted advisor, especially in the area of foreign policy. He has also lead many of the Obama’s administration’s initiatives, especially those involving the budget and gun control.

181Chapter Eight: The Presidency



As noted in Chapter 7, vice presidents are also formally charged with presiding over Senate oor debate, but since that debate is essentially unregulated, this duty is without true power. Oftentimes, the vice president is mainly an electoral resource—someone to help a presidential candidate pull in votes in an area of the country where that person might be weak.

The White House Staff and The Executive Of ce of the Presidency Positions and organizations in these two entities may be based on direct

presidential creation or on congressional statutes (or some combination thereof). They act as personal/political and policy advisers to the president, respectively.

The White House Staff are the people who most immediately surround the president. They act as personal advisers. These people advise the president on what to say, when to say it, what to do, who to meet, and when. The president’s Chief of Staff coordinates this group, which includes people like speech writers, press and appointment secretaries, and political advisers. Members of Executive Of ce of the residenc (or E.O.P.) act as policy advisers to the president. They advise the president on what policies to pursue and propose and assist with management of the federal bureaucracy. This group includes economic advisers, legislative advisers, and domestic and foreign policy advisers, among others.

The president appoints members of the White House Staff and E.O.P. They do not require Senate con rmation because they are advisers without any true operational responsibility. In addition, they serve at the president’s pleasure.’’ This phrase means they serve only as long as the president wants them. The president may re them at any time without cause.

Because of their advisory role, presidents often place some of their closest acquaintances in these positions. New presidents generally replace all of the previous occupants with people they want and trust. Information on White House of ces and agencies may be found on the White House website (see:

182 The Basics of American Government



Cabinet Departments and Executive Agencies These are the organizations created by congressional statutes. They

actually carry out policy. In this capacity, they both assist the president in ful lling the roles of the chief executive, and they also provide the president with advice on future policies to pursue. These departments and agencies are grouped according to substantive topics, much like the committee system in Congress. Examples include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security, The Small Business Administration, and NASA (see Chapter 9).

The president nominates the heads of these organizations, but unlike the advisers, they require Senate con rmation. The reason for this distinction is that, unlike the advisers, these organizations have operational responsibilities (in other words, unlike advisers, they actually do something). They carry out the will of Congress (in the form of laws), so Congress has a say as to who heads these departments and agencies.

Like the advisers, department and agency heads serve at the president’s pleasure. Generally, incoming presidents will replace most or all department and agency heads with their own people. Everyone below the few top levels in these organizations are neither appointed nor red by the president. They are hired under provisions of the Civil Service (see Chapter 9) based on merit and cannot be red except for cause. As such, lower level department and agency employees often serve in their positions as careers which cross two or more administrations. Information on cabinet departments and executive agencies may be found at the website (see:

It is clear from all this information that cabinet departments and executive agencies are more independent and removed from the president than are the White House Staff and E.O.P.

WHO DO YOU TRUST?: Presidents have many sources of advice. Members of the White House Staff and the E.O.P. are hired as advisors, but cabinet secretaries and agency heads are also in a good position to provide advice—especially since they are the ones actually out there carrying out laws and policies.

Since members of the White House Staff and the E.O.P. depend on the president for their jobs, they sometimes become yes people’’ and shield the president from bad news. Understandably, this characteristic makes

183Chapter Eight: The Presidency



them potentially poor advisors3. The Cabinet may actually be in a better position to give advice. After all, they know if policies are working or not because they are running them! But will presidents listen to them?

Cabinet departments and executive agencies are less dependent on the president for their jobs (since the heads of these organizations require congressional con rmation and everyone else is a civil service hire). As such, they are much more likely to say no to the president when needed. Is there potential here for a president to become isolated in a White House Fortress’’ favoring those White House aides who are least likely to be honest over the cabinet and executive of cers who have real-world experience? Is there any evidence that recent presidents favored their White House and E.O.P. advisors over their department and agency heads?

Appointment Power The Constitution empowers the president to appoint all federal judges

and Supreme Court justices, and top-level cabinet and executive agency personnel (including the ambassadors who represent the United States around the world), subject to Senate con rmation (see Chapter 7). In addition, presidents may hire White House staff as they see t. These appointments amount to over 6,000 people by recent estimates. This ability is considered a source of power, because it gives the president the ability to shape the Executive Branch. The president has the power to appoint area and issue experts and/or to reward loyal supporters with jobs ( patronage’’). Also, while judicial appointments serve for life, Executive Branch appointments (except for those in regulatory agencies) serve at the president’s pleasure’’ (meaning they may be

red at any time, without cause). As mentioned earlier, this power is best illustrated at the start of each new administration, especially if the new president is not from the same party as the outgoing one. At that time, most, if not all, incumbent department and agency heads resign to allow the incoming president to nominate friendly’’ replacements.4

3 When she was President Reagan’s Assistant for Public Liaison, Elizabeth dole once ironically remarked, The president doesn’t want any yes-men and yes-women around him. When he says no, we all say no’’ 4 Though rarely admitted, there is evidence that most presidents ask new appointees to submit a standing letter of resignation. Presidents will pull out these letters when they want to replace someone but wish to avoid the distasteful act of ring them (which sometimes leaves the impression that the president erred in their hiring).

184 The Basics of American Government



Legislative Power Though not part of the Legislative Branch, many consider the president

our chief legislator’’ (Rossiter, 1956, p. 14 see also Cavalli, 2006). The president is an important actor throughout the legislative process. The presidency is actually the primary source of legislative proposals. In fact, in some instances, such as with the federal budget, the president is actually required by federal law to submit proposals.5 The Constitution even requires the president to recommend legislation from time to time’’ (Article II, Section 3). This process has become institutionalized as the president’s annual State of the Union Address.’’ This agenda setting function gives the president a lot of in uence over Congress’s legislative work (e.g., see Light, 1999).

Modern presidents tend to live or die by the success of their campaign proposals (Cavalli, 2006), which almost always involve legislative proposals. So, once proposals are submitted to Congress, presidents have a natural interest in taking steps to ensure their passage. Much of their time is spent building support for their proposals both publicly and with members of Congress.

The constitutional veto power (Article I, Section 7) also gives presidents in uence at the end of the process. All legislation must be presented to the president who may sign it into law (or allow it to become law without signature after ten days) or reject it with a veto, which the Congress may try to override and enact into law on its own6 (see Chapter 7).

So, the head of the Executive Branch is actually one of the most in uential players in the legislative process at all stages: The beginning (recommends legislation), the middle (builds support), and the end (signs or vetoes).

Chief Diplomat and Commander-in-Chief The president is also our chief diplomat and commander in chief of

our armed forces. The president effectively manages our relationship with the rest of the world. As chief diplomat, the president meets with foreign heads of state, negotiates treaties, and enters into executive agreements

5 The Budget Act of 1921 requires the president to submit a budget to Congress every year. A related example is the Employment Act of 1946 which requires the president to submit an annual economic report to Congress that includes direction on how to achieve future economic goals. 6 Except for pocket vetoes,’’ which are vetoes occurring while Congress is not in session. Pocket vetoes may not be overridden.

185Chapter Eight: The Presidency



with them, and receives foreign ambassadors in recognition of their government. As commander-in-chief, the president oversees the nation’s military establishment:

In times of peace he raises, trains, supervises, and deploys the forces that Congress is willing to maintain. With the aid of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council—all of whom are his personal choices—he looks constantly to the state of the nation’s defenses. (Rossiter, 1957, p. 11)

In [times of war] the President’s power to command the forces swells out of all proportion to his other powers. All ma or decisions of strategy, and many of tactics as well, are his alone to make or to approve. (Rossiter, 1956, p. 12)

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?: Though the Constitution makes the president the commander-in-chief of our armed forces (Article II, Section 2), it gives the power to declare war to the Congress (Article I, Section 8). The power to, as Shakespeare put it, Cry Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war’’ (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I) is actually divided between the two branches. This division has generated a long-lasting tension between them that particularly ared up during the ietnam War. As with all post-World War II military actions, this war’’ was never declared by Congress. Presidents simply began committing troops into military action without seeking a formal declaration from Congress. The escalation of the ietnam War by presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the face of drastically declining public and congressional support led Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution in 1973. The act limits the president’s ability to commit troops into hostile action without the express consent of Congress (see Chapter 14). Though never challenged in court for fear of losing, all presidents since its passage have considered the act an unconstitutional infringement on their power as commander-in-chief. Congress, also fearing that they would lose a court challenge, has never fully insisted on the act’s enforcement. Instead, the two sides seem to have reached a mutual understanding where presidents will continue to commit troops to action without any formal war declaration by Congress.

186 The Basics of American Government



In place of a formal declaration, though, presidents will seek some sort of consent (e.g, see CNN politics, 2002), and Congress, not eager to appear unpatriotic or unsupportive of the military, will most always grant that consent.

These constitutional and legal sources of power are available to all presidents. As such, they would not explain variations in presidential power. In addition, in and of themselves, they have changed little over time. The size of the executive branch has grown tremendously, especially during the 20th century. However, the appointment power has actually been curtailed—largely through the Civil Service Act. As noted earlier, Richard Neustadt claims all these resources make the president nothing more than a clerk (with a really top-notch support staff!). They do not, according to Neustadt, explain the modern transformation of the presidency into something often regarded as the most powerful position on earth. To explain that, we must move beyond these sources.

Political and Other Power Sources These sources of power are not formally speci ed either in the

Constitution of in federal law. However, Neustadt and others say they are responsible for much of the power of the modern presidency.

Support: Election and Approval Whether through election or through ever-present public opinion polls, a

president with the support of the public can accomplish a lot. For example, presidents often suggest legislation to Congress. Congress is more likely to act on those suggestions if the president can claim that the American people support such legislation. After all, the American people collectively comprise the voters who put members of Congress in of ce (and can take them out as well!). A president who claims a popular mandate because of a landslide electoral victory and/or high public approval ratings can claim such support. One without such a mandate cannot.

Support: Party and Group Political party is a source of loyalty and cooperation that can bridge the

separation of powers built into our system. This was the original intent of the Anti-Federalists as they organized themselves into the rst American political party (see Chapter 6). Presidents can often count on their fellow

187Chapter Eight: The Presidency



partisans to support their initiatives and proposals. In Congress, this support translates into votes. There, it helps even more if the president’s party is the majority—more able to control the process and to deliver a victory for the president. Obviously, a Congress controlled by the other party can severely constrain a president’s in uence over policy.

Groups can work to build public support for presidents. This support in turn, can bolster a president’s in uence over Congress when seeking legislation. Democratic presidents will often seek to work with labor unions like the AFL-CIO, while Republican presidents will often seek to work with business groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Leadership When the president raises an issue, it becomes the topic of discussion

for many, if not most, Americans. For example, if the president says we should debate the issues of reforming Social Security or access to affordable health care, the country debates those issues. We may or may not agree with the president’s position, but if it is an issue to the president, then it is an issue to us. In fact, we expect presidents to do this.

Think about what you look for in a presidential candidate. Do you look for one who says I promise to do the best I can to execute the laws of the land’’ or one who says I want to change this law or create that policy?’’ You probably prefer the latter. It gives the president the opportunity to set the nation’s agenda. That is, to lead the way on the issues upon which we will focus our energies.

Media When the president says it, it is news. It is as simple as that. The White

House is simply required coverage for any major news organization. This idea means that presidents can rely on media to convey their ideas to the public. In fact, with the development of the Internet, presidents have far more avenues to advance their ideas than ever before. Ironically, many presidents often distrust the media, seeing them as the enemy rather than as an ally (Nelson, 2000). However, presidents who see the bene ts can use the media as a conduit to exercise the leadership discussed earlier. In the television—and now, Internet—age, presidents are increasingly

going public’’ to sell their policies directly to the people (Kernell, 1986). The Internet especially allows presidents to communicate directly with the

188 The Basics of American Government



public, avoiding the scrutiny and punditry of news media (for example, see

Presidential Power Redux The contention among presidential scholars like Richard Neustadt is

that presidents’ constitutional and legal powers add up to no more than that of a servant to Congress. Yet, we know that the president is thought of oftentimes as the most powerful person on earth. Neustadt and many others claim that real presidential power stems from persuasive abilities backed up by public support and skillful use of other political resources (Neustadt, 1990, Tulis, 1987, Jacobs, 2010, Tichenor, 2010).

THE JOHNSON TREATMENT’’ COMES TO THE WHITE HOUSE: Shortly after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, the new president, Lyndon Johnson, formed a commission to investigate the murder. One person he asked to serve on the commission was Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, one of the most senior and powerful members of Congress at the time.

Sen. Russell tried to decline the appointment. Yet, President Johnson took the audacious step of simply announcing that Russell, among others, had been appointed to the commission. In a conversation recorded on a Dictabelt on the evening of November 29, 1963, President Johnson tells Sen. Russell that the announcement has already been made (Miller, 2010d). Russell protests, I just can’t serve on that commission!’’

Over the course of many minutes, Johnson simply wears Russell down. Russell is relentlessly bombarded with a mixture of attery ( I’ve got one man that’s smarter than the rest ’’), patriotism ( You’re going to serve your country and do what is right!’’), loyalty ( I’m begging you!’’, your president’s asking you to do these things…because I can’t run this country by myself!’’), and conspiracy theories ( The Secretary of State… [is] deeply concerned…about this idea that [Soviet Premier] Kruschev killed Kennedy.’’).

Eventually, a resigned Russell says, We won’t discuss it any further, Mr. President, I’ll serve.’’

he rowth of Presidential Power As noted earlier, the Executive Branch was not rst on the minds of the

framers. They clearly felt Congress would be the more dominant branch.

189Chapter Eight: The Presidency



Their vision held true through the 19th century and into the 20th. Then, things began to change.

The Legislative Branch is designed to discuss and debate. These abilities are essential for law-making in a democratic society. The Executive Branch is designed to execute, in other words, to do things. It is designed for action. In the 20th century, a series of major—indeed international—crises touching several generations of Americans began to permanently shift our main expectation of the federal government from one of democratic deliberation to one of action.

The Great Depression of the 1930s, The Second World War in the early 1940s, and the Cold War of the late 1940s through the late 80s all required action—in many instances immediate action—often on a massive scale. We began to expect the federal government to secure our well-being from threat after threat. The government responded by taking unprecedented action to manage the economy during the Great Depression, and to beef up our military capabilities and international involvement throughout the Second World War and the Cold War. These responses are now permanent areas of government activity. Concerns over domestic and international terrorism in the early 21st century have perpetuated this activity.

So how do these things empower the presidency? Quite simply, all this activity required legislation and each new law and program required another executive agency and more presidential advisors.

‘‘The President Needs Help’’ So said the Brownlow Committee on Administrative Management in

its 1937 report following President Roosevelt’s attempts to cope with expanded government in the face of the Great Depression. The committee recommended a formal structure to help manage the growing number of agencies and the laws and programs they administer. Over time, most of their recommendations were adopted as the Executive Of ce of the Presidency. This management assistance in turn allowed the pursuit of a broader array of policies, further empowering the Executive Branch.

Congressional Accomplices In some instances, the Congress actually ordered the president to

take action. For example, in the last several decades, presidents have been required to monitor and manage levels of national in ation and

190 The Basics of American Government



unemployment. They have also been required to certify which foreign countries are worthy of our highest levels of trade.

The more laws, the larger the Executive Branch. The larger the Executive Branch, the greater the effect of presidents and presidential decision on our lives. By the late 1920s, the Executive Branch grew to and has remained at over 1.5 million civilian personnel. There are yet another 2 million military personnel under the Department of Defense. These numbers make the Executive Branch the largest single employer in world history!

Case Stud L ndon ohnson and edicare7 Several decades ago, leading presidential scholar Richard Neustadt said,

Laws and customs now re ect acceptance of [the president] as the great initiator, an acceptance quite as widespread at the Capitol as at his end of Pennsylvania Avenue’’ (Neustadt, 1990, p. 7). This statement is as true now as it was when he rst wrote those words in 1959. Modern presidents are elected and judged not by their ability to implement laws…, but by their ability to get their proposals enacted into law’’ (Cavalli, 2006, p. 1).

As president during much of the late 1960s, Lyndon Johnson was deeply involved in the legislative process. Historian Doris Kearns (1976) says that [o]ther presidents had paid close attention to the Congress, but the scope and intensity of Lyndon Johnson’s participation in the legislative process were unprecedented’’ (p225). Of Johnson, she also says,

he had to know how much to involve which members of Congress in what bill, selecting for each member the kind of participation that promised him the greatest reward, deciding where to draw the line in order to avoid the kind of over involvement that might expose his program to crippling opposition in advance. And he had to know these things himself, directly, from face-to-face talks, because only Johnson was in contact with all the varied groups and subgroups in both Congress and the administration. (Kerns, 1976, p.225)

She quotes Johnson as saying,

There is but one way for a President to deal with the Congress, and that is continuously, incessantly, and

7 This case study is borrowed in large part from Chapter 8 in Cavalli, Carl D. 2006. Presidential Legislative Activity. Landham, MD: University Press of America.

191Chapter Eight: The Presidency



without interruption. If it’s really going to work, the relationship between the President and the Congress has got to be almost incestuous. He’s got to know them even better than they know themselves. And then, on the basis of his knowledge, he’s got to build a system that stretches from the cradle to the grave, from the moment a bill is introduced to the moment it is of cially enrolled as the law of the land. (Kearns, 1976, p.226)

It is clear that Johnson believed contact with Congress was the key to in uence in the legislative arena. There is merit to his thinking there is at least some correlation between contact and legislative success on the aggregate level (Cavalli, 2006).

Does this hold true in individual instances? In other words, is there evidence that presidential contact with members of Congress plays a part in getting individual pieces of legislation passed? Using data on presidential activity, including contact with members of Congress, we can take tentative steps to explore these questions surrounding Johnson’s and Kearn’s statements.

The rst step is to select a bill. It is best to select a prominent bill, one that dominated the political landscape during its existence. This helps provide some con dence that a large amount of the presidential- congressional interaction is connected to the legislation being considered.

Contemporary examples of proposals tting these criteria would be President George W. Bush’s 2008 Wall Street aid package, and President Barack Obama’s 2010 health care legislation. At the times, these plans were virtually the sole focus of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

One bill during the Johnson Administration that meets the criteria was the Medicare Act of 1965. It passed the House on April 8th, 1965 and the Senate later that summer. In addition it was a high priority item. Lyndon Johnson repeatedly emphasized the importance of Medicare:

Throughout the 1964 Presidential campaign I repeatedly promised that medical care for the elderly would be ‘‘at the top of my list’’ of proposals to the new Congress. . . In my State of the Union message on January 4 [1965], I asked the Eighty-ninth Congress to make Medicare its rst order of business. . . To dramati e the importance we

192 The Basics of American Government



attached to it, we asked the leadership to designate it ‘‘S- 1’’ in the Senate. . . and ‘‘HR-1’’ in the House. (Johnson, 1971, pp 213-215)

It is clear from Johnson’s own words that he felt Medicare was of primary importance. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Medicare bill was the administration’s top concern in 1965 ( Ways and Means…’’, 1965). Biographer Robert Dallek (1998) notes that Johnson believed Medicare to be the centerpiece of his Great Society program, and thought it essential that the policy pass the 89th Congress.

It appears that the Medicare bill is an appropriate one to use. The question is whether or not there is a relationship between the amount of presidential contact with members of Congress and their vote on the bill. A high degree of support among those most in contact with the president is not a perfect measure of presidential in uence (there is a notable “chicken- and-egg” problem here: support may foster contact in some instances— the president may work most closely with those who are most supportive). However, some relationship is necessary to demonstrate and bene t to contact (i.e., while a relationship is no guarantee of in uence, the lack of a relationship clearly challenges any notion of in uence).

To address Johnson’s potential in uence, we need to restrict our data in certain ways:

Senators voted later in the year and may have been in uenced by the House vote, so they are excluded from this study. The further back in time before the House vote, the less relevant the data, so the examination of Johnson’s contact with House members is restricted to approximately one month before Medicare’s passage on April 8th, 1965. The data is limited to only those members of Congress with who Johnson had had any contact during this period. The reason for this is that, quite simply, even with all the talk about the importance of interaction, Johnson only had direct contact with a relatively few members (amounting to approximately 10% of the House), leaving the rest to interact with liaison staff. Given this limited overall contact, no analysis would return any meaningful results. And given the focus on what is essentially the value of contact, a focus on only those with whom he did contact can help tell us whether or not contact with others would boost his support if needed.

193Chapter Eight: The Presidency



Finally, only contact with rank and le House members is included (i.e., contact with the leadership is excluded). While choosing a prominent issue like Medicare does not boost the likelihood that any given contact will concern that topic, the leadership are much more likely than the rank and le to be contacted on any number of matters at any given time period. It is more probable that the rank and le will be contacted solely concerning legislation of the moment.

Limiting our study to those House rank and le with whom the president had had some contact in the month before the vote leaves us with 49 members. Among those members, there is a mild but statistically signi cant relationship between the amount of contact a House member received from the president in the month before the Medicare vote and that member’s vote on the Medicare bill8. While it again must be noted that there is “noise” in this data (it is virtually certain that Medicare, while prominent, was not the sole topic of all contacts), there does appear to be some relationship between contact and vote. While the chicken and egg’’ problem, among others, remains, it is apparent that the ability to predict the Medicare vote of the rank and le House members is enhanced by knowing how much contact they had with Johnson.

Although this inquiry appears to support Johnson’s beliefs, too much should not be read into these results. The temporal sequence is good. All contact does indeed precede the vote on Medicare. However, we have not eliminated potential outside causes.

For example, while there is a mild correlation between contact and vote, there are strong and statistically signi cant correlations between both political party and ideology and the Medicare vote (with Democrats and liberals more likely to support the legislation)9. This information suggests that many members of Congress may be predisposed to support Medicare, regardless of contact. These three variables do explain the bulk of the variance in Medicare vote among those contacted by Johnson, but only ideology holds up as a statistically signi cant variable when all three are considered.

8 The correlation coef cient is .29 (p .05). 9 The correlation coef cient between party and Medicare vote among those contacted by Johnson is .42 (p .01), and the correlation coef cient between ideology (as measured by ADA scores) and Medicare vote among those contacted by Johnson is .74 (p .01).

The Basics of American Government194



So we expect presidents to be active in the legislative arena, but should they be? Does it do any good? Our case study provides but one example. While it is technically less than conclusive, it is surely okay to say that old adage applies here: It couldn’t hurt!’’

Discussion Questions 1. Discuss the nature of executive power and the framers’ intentions

for the presidency. 2. From where do other nations’ leaders derive their power? For

example, compare the source of power in both the British monarch and Prime Minister to our presidents.

3. isit or contact either your state governor’s of ce or a state executive agency, or if possible, the White House or a federal agency or cabinet department and explore the “every-day” meaning of executive power.

4. Perhaps the most famous modern study of the presidency is Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power. Contrary to earlier views, Neustadt suggested the main power source is not the Constitution (as the best known work at the time—Edward S. Corwin’s The President: Of ce and Powers—suggested), but rather presidents’ persuasive abilities, as affected by their situation relative to others ( status and authority’’). His work is still celebrated today (e.g., see Michael Nelson’s tribute in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Neustadt’s Presidential Power’ at 50,” article/Neustadts-Presidential/64816/). Later research built on his ideas:

Aaron Wildavsky’s 1966 The Two Presidencies’’ (Trans- Action, vol. 4, iss. 2, pp 7-14) Graham Allison’s 1971 Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.) James David Barber’s 1972 Presidential Character (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall) Samuel Kernell’s 1986 Going Public (Washington, DC: CQ Press)

Use these classic works as a starting point to research changing views on the nature of presidential power.

195Chapter Eight: The Presidency



References Barger, H. M. (1978). The prominence of the chief of state role in the

American presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 8(2), 127-139.

Cavalli, C. D. (2006). Presidential legislative activity. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

CNN Politics. (2002, September 4). Bush to seek approval’ from Congress on Iraq. CNN. Retrieved from politics/congress.iraq_1_military-action-camp-david-congressional- leaders?_s PM:ALLPOLITICS.

Dallek, R. (1998). Flawed giant: Lyndon Johnson and his times, 1961- 1973. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hirsch, Michael. (2012, April 26). Biden: Most Powerful P Ever?. National Journal. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal. com/2012-presidential-campaign/biden-most-powerful-vp- ever–20120426.

Holding, R. (2007). Privileged positions. Time, 170(4), 57-8.

Jacobs, L. R. (2010). The presidency and the press: The paradox of the White House communications war. In Nelson, Michael (Ed.), The presidency and the political system (9th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Johnson, L. B. (1971). The vantage point: Perspectives of the presidency, 1963-1969. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Kearns, D. (1976). Lyndon Johnson and the American dream. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Kernell, S. (1986). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

The Basics of American Government196



Kuttner, R. (2004, February 25). Cheney’s unprecedented power. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/25/cheneys_ unprecedented_power/.

Light, P. C. (1999). The president’s agenda: Domestic policy choice from Kennedy to Clinton. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

McDuffee, Allen. (2013, January 15). Joe Biden a more powerful vice president than Dick Cheney? The Washington Post. Retrieved from joe-biden-a-more-powerful-vice-president-than-dick-cheney/.

Miller Center of Public Affairs. (2010a). John F. Kennedy – Dictabelt Recordings 19A.3-Kennedy and Gordon Cooper (May 16, 1963). Audio retrieved from whrecordings/dictabelts/conversations/jfk_dict_19a3.mp3.

Miller Center of Public Affairs. (2010b). Lyndon B. Johnson – January 1964 Tape #6401.06, Citation #1198, Carl Sandburg. Audio retrieved from a u d i o v i s u a l / w h r e c o r d i n g s / t e l e p h o n e / c o n v e r s a t i o n s / 1 9 6 4 / lbj_wh6401_06_1198_sandburg.mp3.

Miller Center of Public Affairs. (2010c). Lyndon B. Johnson – January 1964 Tape #6401.06, Citation #1204, Eugene McCarthy. Audio retrieved from whrecordings/telephone/conversations/1964/lbj_wh6401_06_1204_ mccarthy.mp3.

Miller Center of Public Affairs. (2010d). Lyndon B. Johnson – November 1963 Tape #K6311.06, Citation #14, Richard Russell. Audio retrieved from telephone/conversations/1963/lbj_k6311_06_14_russell.mp3.

197Chapter Eight: The Presidency



Nelson, M. (2000). Why the media love presidents and presidents hate the media. The Virginia Quarterly Review. 76(2), 255-68.

Neustadt, R. E. (1990). Presidential power and the modern presidents. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rossiter, C. (1956). The American Presidency. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.

Teten, R. L. (2007). “We the people”: The “modern” rhetorical popular address of the presidents during the founding period. Political Research Quarterly. 60(4), 669-682.

Rothkopf, David. (2013, January 14). The Bidenization of America. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from articles/2013/01/14/the_bidenization_of_america.

Tichenor, D. J. (2010). The presidency and interest groups: Allies, adversaries, and policy leadership. In Michael Nelson (Ed.), The presidency and the political system, (9th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Tulis, J. K. (1987). The rhetorical presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Walsh, K. T., et al. (2003). The man behind the curtain. U.S. News & World Report. 135(12), 26-32.

Ways and Means approves broad welfare measure. (1965). Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 23(1), 562.

Wertheimer, M. M., & Gutgold, N. D. (2004). Elizabeth Hanford Dole: Speaking from the heart. Westport, CT: Praeger.

The Basics of American Government198

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"