Presidency: A Democratic Institution?

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist 70 that “a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government….government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.” Hamilton directs us as American citizens, therefore, to believe that in order to have a respectable and working government, presidential power must be great. Hamilton goes on to argue that plurality in the executive branch would be dangerous for democracy. “When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse, and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who, from the very circumstances of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others..” Thus, Hamilton understands that which Rossiter addresses in “The Presidency—Focus of Leadership:” “[the president] is held primarily accountable for the ethics, loyalty, efficiency, frugality, and responsiveness to the public’s wishes of the two and one-third million Americans in the national administration.”

However, Rossiter argues that “the president who senses the popular mood and spots new tides even before they start to run, who practices shrewd economy in his appearances as spokesman for the nation, who is conscious of his unique power to compel discussion on his own terms and who talks the language of Christian morality and the American tradition, can shout down any other voice or chorus of voices in the land.” Rossiter’s views on the presidency make the president out to be a controlling dictator in our land of democracy. I disagree with the idea that the public opinion can be drowned out by the president’s voice, for there are many checks and balances put onto our government by the founding fathers for the very reason of not allowing one man’s opinion to dictate the direction of a country. Rossiter continues on to say “so long as the United States remains the richest and most powerful member of any coalition it may enter, then its president’s words and deeds will have a direct bearing on the freedom and stability of a great many other countries.” Again, Rossiter’s views upon our country, although very patriotic to America indeed, express the sentiments which make other countries wary of the United States. The attitude that America is above all other countries, and therefore is responsible to those countries to ensure their own domestic fidelity, is one that portrays the United States to be a nation of egotistical people. Although I do believe that the president should be mindful of the other nations of the world, it is not the president’s duty to preside over other countries as well.

What, then, is this exact definition of the responsibilities of the president? “The founding fathers left [the presidency] extraordinarily loose in definition, partly because they trusted George Washington to invest a tradition as he went along (Barber).” Because of this, the presidency has been defined by the character of men who have since taken office: Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and other presidential leaders. The president, then, not only assumes the responsibilities of being the leader of the Executive Branch, the Commander-in-Chief, the leader of Congress, the leader of his political party, and the leader of the American democracy; “his leadership involves far more than governmental action (Neustadt).” Neustadt continues to write, “His strength or weakness, then, turns on his personal capacity to influence the conduct of the men who make up government….other men have found it practically impossible to do their jobs without assurance of initiatives from him. Service for themselves, not power for the president, has brought them to accept his leadership in form.” Ultimately, Neustadt is suggesting, people are inherently selfish, and the president, in all his glory, must swoop down to save the government from self-interested men. I don’t see the world through Neustadt’s cynical eyes, however, and I do not believe that our men and women of Congress need or accept assurance and advice from the president. In saying that this is part of the president’s job, Neustadt is going against everything the founding fathers hoped for.

James David Barber also makes the argument that “the president’s main responsibilities reach far beyond administering the Executive Branch or commanding the armed forces.” However, Barber understands the pressure put onto the presidential office, but not by egotistical Congressmen as Neustadt claims; “[public leadership] inevitably brings to bear on the president intense moral, sentimental, and quasi-religious pressures which can, if he lets them, distort his own thinking and feeling.” Power affects people in different manners, and in order to understand whether a candidate can be effective as a leader, Barber presents four arguments having to do with the candidate’s personality, his character, his early adulthood, and whether the candidate actively enjoys politics. “The problem is to understand—and to state understandably—what in the personal past foreshadows the presidential future.” This statement is believable, to a certain extent. If we must judge a person by his past, then perhaps we see who he was, but do we see what it made him today? In other words, the past is a tricky thing—some people live well their entire lives, but others struggle to find themselves, and in that journey, might often lose themselves. If we judge a man on mistakes he has made, do we then truly see the man who corrected and learned from those mistakes?

Mistakes seem to be something that Skowronek argues are not in strong leaders. If one is to be a leader, one must be tough and self-thinking. “A leadership posture is, first and foremost, an assertion of political authority.” It is hard to listen to Skowronek’s argument, though, and truly trust in the author who believes that “George W. Bush leads by definition.” According to Skowronek, Bush is a man who displays “an acute sensitivity to the problem of political definition, a view of politics as a struggle for definition, an understanding of leadership as the assertion and control of definitions.” Do we really want another George W. Bush as president? Do we really want someone who is assertive and believes in himself so much, to the point of not listening to others’ opinions and suggestions? Does America need a powerful and assertive leader, or one who leads with the people? Milikis states that “the decentralized character of politics in the United States could be modified only by strong presidential leadership…” but do we really believe that?

Alexander Hamilton wrote on the desirability of a strong presidential power. His stance leads us to the question: how much power are we as American citizens willing to give to the presidential office? And, in times of war, will America be able to make the decision to grant the president what John W. Dean calls a “constitutional dictatorship?” “When confronted with a major crisis—particularly one that is, like terrorism, of an unfamiliar nature—the nation will turn to the President for initiative and resolute leadership. If our very existence and way of life are threatened, Americans will want their President to do whatever is necessary.” And could we “afford not to resort to undemocratic methods when such methods are essential to the preservation of the state? (Dean)” Can we as American citizens, trust the man or woman we elect to office, to the extent that we place our country’s democracy in his or her hands? And isn’t that the point? That as a democratic country, we need to be able to trust in the men and women we elect into office….but do we?