The president is supposed to exercise the powers which are granted to him or her by the Federal Constitution or the Congress act in the interest of the public. However there have been divergent arguments among the people holding this presidential office arising from different references and reasoning.
All the arguments insist that each is function best for the public welfare (Cronin and Genovese 43). In the above view, the president has the responsibility to act in the interest of the public, ensure all situations are right for the interest of his people and make right judgments because they directly affect the lives of the ruled.
The president can at any time withdraw any entry into U.S’ public lands and put aside part for forestry, for irrigation purposes and water resources. Jackson Lincoln held the view that the president must be capable of forming judgments for himself and his juniors (Cronin and Genovese 45).
Today’s presidency has both informal and formal leverage to command decisions at any time. They can certainly come up with personal initiatives and decide on whichever matters. Additionally, the role of presidents has seemingly become that of main agenda setters in the making of policies at federal level. The president is also surrounded with a bureaucracy that further extends his mandate and powers.
In the modern days, presidents have the capacity to drive political systems in the way they wish because they are the main actors in the systems hence obscuring the role of their subordinates (Fine and Waterman 25).
The president also has the power to take significant measures that can have dynamic implications on the nation. For example, the president can deploy tactical nuclear weapons. The impact of this executive power is magnified by the fact that their decisions have direct impacts on the general public understanding (Cronin and Genovese 54).
The different views held come from the ambiguity in defining the role of the president. For many years now, presidential practices have varied. Roosevelt for example fostered palace politics, Kennedy concentrated on collegial informality, and Eisenhower assumed the role of building his staff. The ambiguity in defining presidential roles makes it easy for the office holders to shape their roles on personal basis.
‘Great’ presidents
Both presidents that have succeeded and those who have failed are considered as great leaders. For example, most scholars claim that President Lyndon Johnson’s extraordinary legislative system has a record in success. Despite his success, scholars argue that Johnson highly contributed in the disastrous war in Vietnam.
Additionally, Dwight Eisenhower is a president that most scholars consider passive during his reign. However, history credits him with very few significant accomplishments. It is in fact argued that it was during his time that Korea went into war and corruption cases within his administration increased. Woodrow Wilson is also one of America’s presidents that is remembered for the Senate’s dismissal of Versailles Treaty (Pfiffner 25).
These are some of presidents known as great although with remarkable failures during their administrations. A survey conducted in 2000 that ranked 10 different categories of leadership indicated that the public and politicians have different views on what presidents should have and be like.
One expectation that makes one a great president is the ability to function more than just managerial or party leaders. Studies indicate that a president must demonstrate great leadership capabilities because they represent the nation at large. The rating in this context falls between being a weak or a strong president.
This is the view that most presidential candidates rise to power with. However, the divergent views of a successful or a failed president must be defined in consideration of different contexts. To meet this expectation from the public, presidents must function ahead of their times.
There are different political times that presidents function well and avoid getting ahead of their time including reconstruction, articulation and disjuncture periods. In this regard, presidents need to know the expectations accompanying their type of leadership. Studies show that there are further different political period that different presidencies have taken place in America (Pfiffner 35).
The patrician period that occurred between 1789-1832, the partisan time occurring between 1832-1900,the pluralist period (1900-1972), and 1972- to date plebiscitary period. Considering the first period, Americans great presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington exhibited great interpersonal skills during their political views with legislators. Additionally, James Madison and John Adams proved weak leaders when gauged against the first political period.
Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, who led national partisan movements, functioned under the second political period hence relatively advantaged. With the centralization of the economy, American presidency was expected to have strong leadership strengths with much emphasis on economy. This was at the pluralist period and effective confrontation of foreign policy.
This was a further consideration in rating whether a president was great or a failure. More so, the presidents in this period must exert full responsibility for national issues by establishing an expansive bureaucracy. In the present plebiscitary period, the presidents sometimes rely less on political organizations and have less capability to bargain as it was seen in the past regimes. With such considerations, the presidents are therefore expected to directly persuade the public (Fine and Waterman 47).
Most scholars believe that presidential power is the ability to persuade the public, Congress members and other political actors in order to reap positive outcome. However, it argues that a president is not considered powerful on the merit of his/her presidency. It says that cultural, constitutional and political factors also empower these individuals to become successful presidential leaders.
However, political power differs among presidency holders mainly because of the diversity in strategic challenges and political resources available to them. Most of America’s presidents have ruled with the belief that the ability to persuade the public, political actors and Congress members determines whether one is a successful president or a failure (Cronin and Genovese 21).
Presidential Leadership
Scholars argue that the definition of leadership must encompass good leadership. But good leadership does not always result into positive results. There are times when poor leadership has yielded positive outcomes. Leadership is therefore the ability to successfully use one’s political skills and the leverage exposed to an individual to yield satisfactory outcomes.
President’s performance is influenced by various factors that expose them to particular challenges. For example, a good economy contributes to high ratings of successful leaders.
The vice versa is also true. If on the other hand, a president has restricted power to influence the economy, scholars question as to whether such presidents should be termed as failures or successful (Cronin and Genovese 22). Ideally, presidential leadership means persuading other political actors to act for their own interests. This is because a leader is supposed to inspires others to do as they desire hence influencing their behaviors.
The challenge that presidential leaders face while convincing the other political actors is the fact that different situations and contexts call for different qualities and skills. Scholars argue that some personal skills can be useful at certain circumstances while others are not (Waterman and Rockman 23).
In this regard, different presidents encounter dissimilar political scenarios on coming to office, because the circumstances change with time hence the different political leverage during the different terms. More so, successful presidents are measured by the ability to respond and manage political outcomes. The important thing is that which the president is interested in and the personal capability to accomplish it.
Presidential leaders are limited by the resources, tools and political capital present to them. The tools include external political supporters in Congress, economical state, the political stability of the nation and the overall international political mood. With such factors, presidential skills as well as political powers are vital in accomplishing their political ambitions (Cronin and Genovese 23).
Presidents have got copious resources, tools and political capital within their reach. This therefore describes the extent of their ability to structure, slant and adapt organizational functions towards favorable angles that match their political and policy interests.
With the constitutional powers presidents can considerably control presidential appointments to advance their political interests. Another leverage tool is their ability to shape and influence the bureaucratic agencies budget. This is because the federal budget often goes with what the Congress passes.
Therefore, when the Congress is controlled by the party’s president, he or she can shape the budget too fit his preferences. Presidents can also use the veto to shape the final legislature’s budget. Studies show that in the 20th century, presidents have used this executive power to gain control over particular institutions that are significant to their presidential leadership (Cronin and Genovese 36).
Most people have no demarcation between leadership and its outcomes but scholars argue that there are possibilities of having good leadership systems resulting in poor performances. Scholars argue that personal leadership skills must be differentiated from the outcomes. In an example, if one has a team of ball players that frequently loses in games; this has little to do with the manager’s skills, the fact is that the team’s quality is poor.
This therefore indicates that it is very possible to have good leadership but on the other hand have poor results. This further illustrates that between the outcome and skills, quality is an intervening variable that must not be ignored. The manager can however influence the outcome through his skills hence maximizing on his leverage.
If a president takes over from a recessed economy, the president has limited tools through which he can influence outcomes in his/her leadership. Therefore there are chances of being unelected back to power. Some may argue that the individual failed to demonstrate presidential leadership skills (Waterman and Rockman 15). However scholars argue that no matter the extent of skills and abilities, it is impossible to achieve the desired outcomes.
If the president inherits an economically stable nation but has limited knowledge, then it can be said that the leader was a bad one, however if the economy was stable yet with minimal leadership knowledge, positive outcomes can still be manifested. Therefore, it is important to consider such factors as to why and how the results were achieved.
At some times, a president may be having personal political skills that results into effective policy or political outcomes. Whereas at other times the president may be having no skills yet there are positive results. Additionally, a president may display skills yet the results turn out negative, at other times, a president may be having no skills but the results become unsuccessful (Waterman and Rockman 18). Leverage is an intervening variable in the first and second case that determines the outcomes.
Historic periods and economy state are also intervening factors that determine the success of a presidential leader. Leaders that rule during pacific times have fewer chances of being termed successful leaders than those who rule during periods of change. Therefore if all these factors are combined with the leverage that a president exerts in his/her governing, then the relationship between leadership and success is clearly manifested.
The Indiana Jones Model depicts a scenario whereby the president has considerable skills, but at the same time has no or minimal leverage, yet the outcomes are significantly great. Although the president may seem gifted, the context doest not provide chances for any positive results. However the president just prevails as a result of luck. This is therefore independent of the president’s leverage or skills. At certain times, it is possible to have positive results with no president’s persuasion and skills.
On the Pseudo-leadership model, the president may be having no skills, has leverage then successful results. This is a case that occurred with President Eisenhower. In this case, leaders in Congress contributed in the passing of significant legislations. The president paid little attention to the issues but much credit went to him. The president displayed no skills (Cronin and Genovese 26).
At other times there are chances of good fortune accompanying the outcomes. For example, Calvin Coolidge appeared a lucky president; it was a matter of being at the right place, at an appropriate time. The president enjoyed a very stable economy that left praises for his name yet he demonstrated no skills and had no leverage within his reach in which to exert influence. It was just his lucky period.
On the other hand a president may have skills and much leverage at his disposal but gets no positive outcomes. In the case of Johnson and the Vietnam War, even if he had substantive public support and extensive Democratic support from both houses, chances of successful outcomes were thin.
More so, recent tapes have shown Johnson mourning because he knows that going to the war provides no chance of winning the battle, however, he also knows that if he does not, he will forever be blamed for the Vietnam defeat. This is a no-win situation in which leadership success is independent of the president.
At another scenario, the president demonstrates leadership skills and is exposed to a considerable leverage that gives him/her significant success. This is a common Neustadt’s case of presidential leadership. Franklin Delano Roosevelt maximized on his extra-ordinary political wit and leverage during the economic recession and World War 11 era to design policies for the New Deal hence the positive war efforts. In this scenario, the president’s success was dependent on his skills (Cronin and Genovese 27).
What it Takes for a Candidate to be Elected
For a candidate to be elected as the president in a federal office, the individual must have attained the age of thirty five years, must be a resident for a minimum of fourteen years. The Electoral College has the provisions that the two houses of Congress and the state participates in electing the president. The state chooses the electors (Electoral College) who eventually elects the president. The candidate that garners majority votes of the electors becomes the president.
If none of the candidates attains majority voles, the House chooses the president while the Senate selects the vice president, each state delegate therefore votes once. However, members of Electoral College can be elected from party states and themselves vote for their fellow party nominees hence influencing the strategies of presidential candidates. This will definitely change the conduct and nature of electing a president (Edwards 34).
Critics of the Electoral College system argue that it is often flawed and that the runner up candidates must not become president, this is because the candidate that garners most votes becomes the president. This perspective, they argue, inflicts a serious burden on the minority leader according to the evolving U.S’ democratic values.
However, they argue that America was initially never expected to have pure democracy and neither was it thought that U.S will be guided by the notion of majority rule (Edwards 31). They say that government institution was meant to be a republic with people’s representative in the government. More so, the separation of powers that has checks and balances was supposed to curb hindrances of change.
In this context, Bill of Rights is implemented to regulate majority’s will from going against citizen’s rights. The explanation given for the president to be elected from direct citizens’ votes is because the president and his vice wholly represent the people amongst al the nationals. And that it is the people’s best chosen candidate. However, the critiques argue that it is not enough to say that people’s will must be the only determining factor for the nationally voted government officials.
They therefore argue that because the president must be voted for by the majority of the population does not mean every other element of the government must be popularly elected (Cronin and Genovese 24). The powers of the modern president are the results of initiatives and patterns that have formed over centuries as far as presidential history is concerned. This is inclusive of crises political realignments, economic depression and institutional changes.
The powers of the president, as Thomas E. Cronin says is very powerful but always inadequate. He argues that at certain times it is weak and limited while at other times it is profound and abused. The public is ambivalent about the powers of presidents. They sometimes enjoy seeing this power reduced and their presidents humbled but at the same time desire to have heroic presidents who have the ability to attain Americans dream (Cronin and Genovese 5).
Opponents of the Electoral College argue that in this system the ballots cast are not equal because different states have varying populations.
They argue that this benefits the small states. In their propositions they argue that the automatic plan would significantly do away with faithless electors voting by automatically enabling state’s electors to vote for the most pluralist in the state (Edwards 45). The strength in this process is that individual electors will not vote in person hence minimal probability of votes being cast in unintended directions.
The district plan would grant one electoral vote the popular plurality’s votes within the state in a congressional district. It says that this plan will allow Electoral College vote be specific in popular vote. However the weakness is that the district plan will not completely eliminate chances of runner-up from becoming the president. The national bonus strategy would preserve constitutional and state’s roles in the process of electing a president (Pfiffner 56).
The Electoral College system also proposes amendments to the Constitution so as to allow for direct populace voting for a president. However the objection to this proposal is that popular election would demean the federal nature of U.S government. More so critics argue that direct popular election will reduce the common endless frauds and recounts.
Those who advocate for direct election of presidents argue that federalism is rather necessary but the electoral votes within small states does not command active campaigns of the main candidate in the party. Significantly, the larger states contests will only take place in the case of massive votes being either ways.
Direct popular election will mean that all votes would be required for the candidate to win presidency. More so, minor political actors will also have an opportunity to vie for presidency hence a multiparty system scenario. This will mean that in a contested election a candidate will have to persuade the public to vote for him or her hence garnering majority populace votes.
Critics of the Electoral College are justified in the sense that for a democratic nation there is always the need for checks and balances in order to control excessiveness of power and responsibility. The critics argue that the reforms are meant to benefit the public in their representation in government offices (Cronin and Genovese 25).
Works Cited
Cronin, Thomas and Genovese, Michael. The Paradoxes of the American Presidency (3rd Ed.). Oxford, Mass: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Edwards, George C. Presidential selection: the flawed foundations of the Electoral College. Texas: A & M University Press, 2004. Print.
Fine, Jeffrey and Waterman, Richard. A new model of presidential leadership: controlling the bureaucracy. New York: Roxbury Press, 2005. Print.
Pfiffner, Davidson. Understanding the presidency: historical perspectives of the presidency. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Print.
Waterman, Richard, and Rockman, Bert. Presidential Leadership: The Vortex of Power. New York: Roxbury Press, 2005. Print.