Back to Assignments Page

Module 3 - Chapter Eleven

The President: White House Politics

 
Dye Textbook: Overview

Dye Textbook - online assignments There are three assignments for each chapter - check within WebCT and on the assignments page.  Each assignment should be completed by Thursday at 7:30 p.m. each week.

Online Lecture

In reviewing Dye’s chapter on the President and White House, you should first ask yourself: What exactly do you personally expect from the President in terms of national leadership?

What roles or functions did you think of? Did "character" emerge as a small or large factor in your thinking?

Presidential Roles

How does your personal list compare to that compiled by Dye (and amended by me below):

(1) A symbolic role as the personification of American government – the national hero, one who praises patriotic acts, the national eulogist…, the one who speaks on behalf of the American people as a whole.

(2) Crisis Manager – the one who can confront crises and soothe the public while thinking up strategies to overcome the problem

(3) Policy Leader – the one who presents an agenda or program of action for government

(4) Party Leader – one who speaks to the positions and ideology of his/her party

(5) Political craftsperson – a person who can find compromises and consensus rather than just confrontation

(6) Manager of the Economy – one who can know what to do and what NOT to do the economy to keep it on a steady course

(7) Top Administrator – a manager of the executive branch, a CEO of American government

(8) Global Leader – a leader of capitalist democracies, one who can confront dictators, but offer help to foreign earthquake victims – a mixture of compassion, "realpolitik," and idealism.

(9) Personification of Virtue – a person whose positive character traits (honesty, dependability, intelligence, loyalty, etc.) make him/her a role model

Try this exercise: Using a four point scale as follows, 1=poor 2=fair 3=good 4=great, rate President Clinton on each of these traits. Add up your score, which should not exceed 36 (4x9) and be less than 9.

Does the overall score surprise you? We will discuss this rating poll at our weekly chat session.

Constitutional Powers of the President

Dye mentions several aspects of becoming and being President. Note his review of the evolution of law related to Presidential succession. 

Did you know that prior to the passage of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no clear path of succession in the event that both the President and Vice President were incapacitated?

Do you know who now follows the Vice President in the chain of ascendancy should the President be incapacitated? (click here to see the list at the end of this lecture).

Do you know what a "Presidential Pardon" is? Check out the "most celebrated use" of such pardons in Dye.

This issue is both simple and complex. It is simple in that the Constitution says what it says and thus lays out the broad framework for government and its parts. Yet the very simplicity of the Constitution – its brevity and generality – make it such that there are many circumstances faced by the country that are not specifically addressed. Dye provides some examples of this on p. 387.

The issue in this chapter is whether the country is better off with a broad or a narrow interpretation of Presidential power. Having read the sections in Dye, what do you think? Should we err on the side of flexibility or does this present the clear danger of unchecked Presidential power and possible abuse?

Dye makes an important point when he states: "Congress is constitutionally positioned to dominate American government, but it is the President who politically dominates the nation’s public affairs." What does he mean by this?

While reading the section on Presidential popularity, ask yourself: "Does a modern President have such powerful access to the media that he/she can manipulate events to ensure his/her popularity?"

Or, conversely, is the opposite true, that the media have such independent control over the public that the President is more subject to the spin of the media that his/her fate is largely out of control?

President as Chief Executive

What does it mean for the President to be the "chief executive." What are the roles of a chief executive in the private sector, say, the chief executive officer of IBM? To whom is such a private CEO accountable?

How is the President both similar and different than a private sector CEO?

Form a list of at least three things a President needs to do to effectively run government. Make a similar imaginary list for a private corporation CEO. Try to find differences.

Let’s think about some of the points Dye raises.

(1) Style. This point deals with issues such as "how much delegation of power does the chief executive allow?" Are all decisions, no matter how apparently technical and micro-focused, to be reviewed by the President? Does the President give power to several close subordinates, as a private sector CEO might give power to a set of Vice Presidents, or is there a single "gatekeeper" such as the Chief of Staff, who filters all requests for the President’s attention.

How open to internal debate is the President and administration? Clinton apparently likes to bring several people with contrasting points of view to the table to air their differences before choosing a policy direction. Others might rely on the good judgment of a single adviser; Bush might rely heavily on Vice-President Chaney for example..

Is the decision-making style largely collaborative or authoritarian? If the latter, the President would dictate orders and expect everyone to follow through without much comment. If the former, a prolonged period of negotiation and bargaining would precede any formal decision.

What are "executive orders?" Can the President give Congress an "executive order" or does it apply only to executive agencies and departments?

Appointments. The President can only appoint 3,000 out of the 2.8 million Federal employees.  Is this a problem or a blessing?

Problem: How can the President be expected to honor commitments made to the public and Congress without greater control over the civil service? If a bunch of entrenched bureaucrats, who are nearly impossible to fire, have been in an agency or department for years, know the topics and all the internal ropes and ladders, and may have opposed views to those of the President can stymie President initiatives, how does this make democracy work better?

Blessing. If the President had the ability to hire and fire many more employees, this would lead to intolerable instability and turnover. No one at the top of each agency or department would have enough experience and knowledge to competently run their organizations. They would not be familiar with the history of certain legislation, regulations and practices. Indeed, it might be the case that the President would appoint incompetent friends and loyalists, and thereby ruin the effectiveness of the organizations.

What do you think? Is the limited appointment ability of the President more of a problem or a blessing?

Remember the most important form of control over agencies is in the appointment of Cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries. They are the ones expected to promote the President’s priorities in each of the individual departments. They are appointed directly by the President, but must undergo confirmation by the Senate (which in the great majority of cases is granted).  Click here for more detail.

Budgets.

Congress’ main control over government’s operations is the "power of the purse." By having to pass every federal budget, it gets to control the fate of specific agencies and departments. It is useful to review how both Congress and the President are guided in their budget decisions by specific agencies:

Congress:

General Accounting Office (GAO). This is the agency which conducts audits of departments and agencies to see how efficiently they are running their programs. It tries to make sure that Congress’ appropriations are not wasted on costly and inefficient practices.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This agency is NOT concerned with the detailed internal practices of agencies and departments. Rather, its function is to look at the entire budget and assess whether it is likely to be in balance, in surplus or deficit. This means that it has to assess various bits of information like: the rate of growth of certain programs, the rate of growth of the economy, the rate of inflation and unemployment, the rate of growth of tax revenues and expenditures. During President Clinton’s many confrontations with the Republican-controlled Congress, the latter would typically insist that any budget submitted by Clinton be "scored" (assessed and evaluated) by the CBO to make sure that the President wasn’t using bogus estimates to balance the budget.

President:

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This agency combines the functions of the GAO and the CBO. It is the entity that makes recommendations to the President. The director of the OMB is probably one of the most important individuals in Washington, especially on domestic programs.

Chief Legislator and Lobbyist

The President, by virtue of his/her election as the one center of gravity in the American system, is the chief initiator of legislation. In the state of the union speech, in the proposed budget, and on the many specific pieces of legislation sought, the President tries to set the tone for policy. Often experiencing a honeymoon period immediate after taking office, many Presidential initiatives are passed early in the term, even when Congress is controlled by the other party.

Naturally, the President can lobby for legislation using various tools such as the power to veto bills, as well as the power to "seduce" Congressperson by inviting to events, promising specific "pork" for their districts, or threatening them by the potential for helping opposing candidates in the next election. As the President can be a formidable fund-raiser, ANYONE opposing a popular President would have to worry about the money the President can raise on behalf of a challenger in the state or district.

Control over the Armed Forces-Global Leader:

The President’s role as chief executive extends to "commander-in-chief." This means that he/she can issue direct orders to the military and enter into various types of commitments with foreign powers. He is advised by a series of entities such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff (leading the various branches of the military), the director of central intelligence (who oversees the various intelligence gathering agencies such as the CIA and NSA); the National Security Council which is the foremost unit evaluating foreign policy. Naturally, the Secretaries of Defense and State are fundamental in helping shape and implement foreign policy.  

PowellPresident Bush relied upon former General Colin Powell to advise him as Secretary of State (the first African-American in that role), taking over from Madeline Albright (the first women in that role).  Another African-American woman, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, was appointed as National Security Advisor to President Bush.  riceShe later succeeded Powell as Secretary of State.

In that role, she will be giving daily advice and summaries of international events and trends to the President.

The President can negotiate treaties, which have to be ratified by the Senate prior to implementation. Difficulties in getting the Senate to go along have made Presidents more likely to enter into executive agreements, which do not need ratification but also don’t have the force of law in US courts (as treaties do).

The war-making autonomy of the President was shaken during the Vietnam War. Congress feared giving too much power to the President, thinking that it was neglecting its responsibility to pursue adequate "oversight."

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 to try to stipulate limits to Presidential foreign policy initiatives. It specifies various limits to the commitment of troops, reporting requirements to Congress, the ability for Congress to end Presidential action by passage of a resolution, etc.

What do you think: Should Congress actively try to manage foreign policy as part of its "oversight" responsibility, to prevent an aggressive President from getting the US involved in more "entangling alliances?" Or would that simply result in 535 commanders-in-chief, in chaos and peril for troops involved in action?

Vice President

Finally, what are the powers and duties of the Vice President? How have these changed over time, despite few changes in the Constitutional designated roles and responsibilities. Is the Vice President still a bystander to policy-making, or an actively involved participant. Check out Dye’s views on this and ask yourself, "What kind of Vice President role is best for the country and why?"

Try going to the http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/ site for some national events.  Local events are covered in several newspapers such as the Annapolis Capital, the Baltimore Sun or the Washington Post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of Presidential Succession

NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.


How A Cabinet is Approved  (click here to go back)

The process of making Cabinet appointments has its origins in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2 states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law."

Once a Cabinet candidate has been selected, and has cleared various background checks, the Office of the Executive Clerk sends the nomination to the Senate. There, it must be confirmed by the Senate committee that has jurisdiction (e.g., the Judiciary Committee confirms nominees for Attorney General.) Once the committee approves a nomination, it is voted on by the full Senate.

Because George W. Bush is not yet president, his choices for Cabinet positions are not technically nominated, but are designees. In its history, the Senate has rejected only nine of more than 500 nominees for Cabinet appointments.

The following positions recently named by Bush do not require Senate approval: National security adviser, chief economic adviser, White House chief of staff, White House press secretary and counselor to the president.