In the most widely quoted and discussed model of presidential power, Richard Neustadt states that the power of the president lies in the power to persuade. According to Neustadt, the key to presidential success and influence is persuasion. Although some may view the president as a powerful authority figure, the checks and balances established by the founders makes the president’s skills of persuasion crucial. The president’s accumulation of personal power can make up for his lack of institutional powers. The president must act as the “lubricant” for the other sectors of government in order to preserve order and accomplish business. Neustadt emphasizes the president’s ability to forge strong personal relationships and his or her charisma, indicating that these characteristics affect the president’s ability to persuade. According to Neustadt, a successful president persuades the public, congress, and foreign powers to align their motives and views with him. Two presidents who validate this statement are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As two presidents who do not validate this statement, Neustadt cites George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. Teddy Roosevelt was a pioneer for 20th century presidents, who embraced a wave of popular reform that evolved into the progressive movement (Presidents). His task was to utilize mass circulation of newsprint and magazines to persuade the public to embrace reform as well. In this sense, he was one of the first presidents to forge a path of true persuasion in the executive office, for his predecessors did not have the tools and technology to reach the public in this manner. Theodore Roosevelt is said to have won over the hearts of the people through his striking magnetism, physical ... ... middle of paper ... ...process. Works Cited Edwards, George C. "Chapter 2 Neustadt's Power Approach to the Presidency." Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert Y. Shapiro, Martha Joynt Kumar, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. 9-15. Questia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. Hargrove, Erwin C. The Power of the Modern Presidency. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Questia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. Hargrove, Erwin C. Presidential Leadership: Personality and Political Style. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Questia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. "Presidential Approval Ratings from 1945-2008." The Wall Street Journal. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. . "Presidents." The White House. Web. 25 Mar. 2010.
Examining the conceptualizations and theories of Neustadt and Skowronek’s in comparative perspective, this essay makes the principal argument that both of these theories only represent partial explanations of how success and efficiency is achieved in the context of the Presidency. With Neustadt focusing saliently on the President’s micro-level elite interactions and with Skowronek adopting a far more populist and public opinion-based framework, both only serve to explain some atomistic facets of the Presidency. As such, neither is truly collectively exhaustive, or mutually exclusive of the other, in accounting for the facets of the Presidency in either a modern day or historical analytical framework. Rather, they can best be viewed as complementary theories germane to explaining different facets of the Presidency, and the different strengths and weaknesses of specific Administrations throughout history.
Sidney M. Milkis, Michael Nelson. The American Presidency Origins & Development, 1776-2011. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2008.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
The growth of the modern presidency actually began with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. He was the first president who saw that the office of the presidency was a "bully pulpit" by which when he did not get his way with Congress he could take his case to the people (Gelderman, 1997). This was one of the first times that a president saw that his role could be active and that he was able to take charge of the power at his disposal.
1. Bovard, James. Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000
From the very beginning of his time in the presidential spotlight, Theodore Roosevelt signified the Progressive goal and ambition. Often times, Roosevelt’s presidency is labeled as accidental or ironic. This irony is present in the fact that he was given the role of vice president to William McKinley simply because Roosevelt’s rising popularity and progressive ideals were seen as a threat by McKinley. The McKinley administration figured that they could silence the growing progressive voice Roosevelt embodied by giving him the menial position of vice president. So, it was seen as a shock when McKinley was suddenly assassinated, six months into his second term, and Roosevelt rose to power bringing with him new excitement and power to the Presidency (Theodore Roosevelt ). It is exactly this surge of excitement and charisma which made Roosevelt one of America’s most unforgettable presidents. His presidential career and attitude can be described by the phrase “steward of the people” which he aimed to embody throughout his term, this meant that Roosevelt made his primary goal to maintain the public good to the fullest extent of his power (Theodore Roosevelt ). Roosevelt’s character and contributions to the Progressive campaign are both equally important parts of American history and will be explored throughout this paper.
He thinks that regardless of the existence of other influential performers from other branches of the government, the president can act based on many other rights he possesses, such as executive orders and national security directives. These tools will allow him to bypass the traditional legislative process. Despite that both authors define power as president’s prime influence, Howell however argues that president has more capacity in which he can partially decide the outcome of a given situation if not whole. Howell steps further and insists more on the president’s capability despite the fact that Neustadt defines power as individual power. Howell envisions that the President must influence the “content of public policy”, in contrast, Neustadt’s argument is based on the exercise of the “Effective” impact by President. Howell, on the other hand, considers that the President is way more powerful on his own than Neustadt thinks. Howell thinks that executive orders, for example, open the path to the President to make important decisions without trying to persuade Congress or the other branches of the government to gain their support. Howell uses President Truman’s decision about federal employees. Howell’s view of unilateral presidential action perfectly fits moments when of crisis when the President, as the Commander in Chief cannot afford the long process of the congressional decision making. As he writes “a propensity of presidents, especially during times of crisis, to unilaterally impose their will on the American public.”
Thomas, Scott. The Pursuit of the White House. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987. 46-52. Print.
Krull, Kathleen, and Kathryn Hewitt. Lives of the Presidents: Fame, Shame, and What the Neighbors Thought. San Diego: Harcourt Brace &, 1998. Print
Should it be evaluated in term of “success” or “influence?” (Collier 1959), suggested that some studies have chosen to focus on success while others have examined the influence. However, most studies have a focus on the presidential success arguing that, emphasis on presidential influence is too narrow. On the other hand, (Collier 1959) argued that, given the problem of the government responsiveness in a system of separate institutions sharing power, it is important to analyze the conditions that might lead to the presidential success rather the success alone. Nonetheless, to find out why success is studied more frequently than influence, required an understanding of the difference between success and influence. According to (Collier 1959), Success evaluated presidential performance in terms of the passage of the legislation supported by the President. Influence emphasizes the president’s ability to alter the actions of others. In other words, success measures the outcome (Example of Roll call votes) whereas, influence measures the pre-outcome (The president ability’s to gather people behind his vision, ability to control or persuade members of Congress, the ability to convince others to do as he
The Journal of the International Institute. 2000. The. The Regents of the University of Michigan. 07 March 05 Sidey, Hugh. The “The Presidency.”
Renshon, Stanley A. “A Preliminary Assessment of the Clinton Presidency: Character, Leadership and Performance.” Political Psychology, vol. 15, no. 2, 1994, pp. 375–394., www.jstor.org/stable/3791746.
Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and with his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
For my Managerial Communication Professional Development Project, I chose to do a book analysis on Maximum Influence: The 12 Universal Laws for Power Persuasion. From now on I will refer to this book as simply “Maximum Influence.” In this book Kurt Mortensen outlines the twelves laws of persuasion, some of these seemed like common sense however, a number of them I didn’t realize were real until they were pointed out in this book. Before reading this book I thought some people were just born with the skill of persuasion and that it couldn’t be learned. After reading this book, I see that I was wrong and I can use these skills laid out in this book to strengthen my persuasive power and use that to move forward in my professional career after graduating