Presidential Power: The Power of Persuasion 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 approach focused on in this analysis will be the Neustadtian approach; a theory presented in Neustadt’s seminal work entitled Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. Also up for analysis is an article by Matthew Kerbel, a follower of the Neustadtian approach who provides empirical analysis that substantiates Neustadt’s work. The first three chapters of Neustad’s work lays out his persuasionary principle of presidential power. Each chapter provides major points that are essential to his theory. For instance, chapter one i... ... middle of paper ... ...tadt has created a viable theory for the modern presidents to think about and use to their advantage. Presidents can also look at the case studies found in Kerbel’s article and see how disastrous inflexibility will be to the president‘s policy agenda. The reason this theory is so viable is because it is so hard to argue against a concept so simple as a power to persuade. In addition, people seem to adhere to the simplest principle that explains presidential power best. References Kerbel, Matthew R. (1993). An Empirical Test of the Role of Persuasion in the Exercise of Presidential Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 23 (2), pp. 347-361. Neustadt, Richard E. (1990). Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan (Rev. ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Through Paul Quirk’s three presidency models that are self-reliant, minimalist, and strategic competence, we learn that there are three models that show us how the presidents use one of them to implement in the term of their presidency (POLS510 Lesson). According to Paul Quirk’s definitions about these three models, each and every president would be easily classified because of their governing style, such as being self-reliant that a president knows everything and is confident what to do and how to act, being minimalist that a president does not need to understand every and each political events and activities what’s going around homeland and world, and the president’s secretaries would take care of everything, and being strategic competence
Stephen Skowronek writes about political time and how one can determine the legacy a president will leave behind at the time their presidency is done. The president has immense powers when he comes to office, but the challenges they each face vary depending on the time they take office. Skowronek analyzes and demonstrates that the most essential factor for a president to attempt to legitimize his actions and orders will be the actions of the president before him. Following the actions of George W. Bush is how we can determine where Barack Obama falls under and follow the chain to the next president. If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election, she would fall under the politics of articulation and Barack Obama would fall under the politics of pre-emption.
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.
As the President of the United States, a president has powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what presidential power is. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Richard Neustadt stated in his book Presidential Power that “Presidential power is the power to persuade.
the US to sign a new treaty, the senate would have to ratify it with a
James D. Barber is a man who explains to us how we should elect a president. He bases his analysis on the candidate’s character. The character can be, the way this individual views the world. It can be the style of government; it can also be the way this individual relates to others. With this theory, James has created a typology. This typology has four categories, Active positive described as the “best” president. Second, Active-negative described as the “worst” president. Third, Passive-positive described as a weak president. Last, passive- negative also described as a weak president. James has evaluated many presidents and placed them in this typology like, JFK, Bush, Eisenhower, Hoover, Wilson, Reagan and many more. It is fair to
The article the Obama Doctrine (Goldberg April 2016) was able to answer many questions that the author had about president Obama’s choices and problems he has had to face. The article revealed how the president felt and dealt with the hardest decisions he has had to make while carrying out America’s role in the world. Many key concepts were represented in the article such as realism, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect.
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.”
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be addressed by the government, when it comes to the presidency, one person, although checked by various other divisions of the same government, has the power and responsibility to literally, as history has proven, change the world. The American people, "like all people everywhere, want to have our (political) cake and eat it too. We want a lot of leadership, but we are notoriously lousy followers" (Genovese). In other words the expectations the public has of the executive office are ever-changing since we demand that our leaders keep up with the evolving world around us and them. Throughout the past seventy eventful years alone, the American people's views, perceptions and demands of the Executive Office of American government have evolved simultaneously with the political and social events of that same time period.
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
To explain, the president has little control with regard to current events and policy making, his wishes are ignored, and his hands are tied. With such circumstances, the president’s desires are viewed as, just that, desires, rather than commands. Unless of course he holds the power of persuasion. In order to reach political power and presidential achievement, the president must persuade other political actors his interests are theirs (Howell 243). Howell counter argues Neustadt, explaining the president exerts influence not by the power of persuasion, but by his unilateral powers. “The president can make all kinds of public policies without the formal consent of Congress”. The unilateral powers emerge from institutional advantages such as the structure, resources, and location within the system of separated powers. (Howell 246-247). By that Howell means, the president’s power does not derive from persuasion, but from simply being the
Neustagt begins with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he believes is the one president that knew how best to yield his power. He uses other examples throughout the book of Presidents from FDR to Reagan and endeavors to show the reader the ways in which power and persuasion was used in order for the presidents too perform at the best of their ability and still retain the power to persuade in order to govern the country and appease the public. Neustadt points out to the reader his opinion of the ways the president power is seen by others and how affective it is when certain strategies are applied correctly.
In closing, Persuasion is a powerful tool, both in trying to persuade others and being
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
In the United States, president is in charge of the executive branch and he initiates the legistlation, but he is dependent on the the legislature to pass it into law. On the other hand, he can veto anything the legislature has passed into law. If we compare this system with a parliamentary s...