An Adaptive Yet Effective Presidency – Does Government Work?

By and large, the role of the American Presidency has changed drastically since the beginning of the United States. Chapter 12, “The Presidency”, in our textbook examines the transformation of the president’s role and attributes the considerable growth and evolution of the American Presidency to structural developments. The framers had intended for the presidency to be a strong and central yet single executive power that, for the most part, represents the workings of the executive and legislative branches. Having said this, the vague outline describing the role of president in the Constitution left a lot up to interpretation, and thus, ultimately a flexible position susceptible to various depictions. As the nation advanced into a world power and became heavily involved in a range of military, diplomatic, and economic activities around the globe, the responsibilities of the president inevitably advanced as well. Having said this, even though the responsibilities of the presidency have changed due to these structural changes, how is it exactly logical or just that with this expansion of duties also came an increase in power, that often is a seemingly executive power, especially when viewed from the standpoint of the general public?

Interestingly enough, the framers had initially envisioned the office of the president to be a relatively detached entity from that of national policy making, where the president merely would serve as a symbol of the nation without contributing much in terms of running it. As Hamilton outlined in The Federalist Papers, No. 68, “The immediate election [of the president] should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their best choice.” This method of election would minimize biases imposed by the public. However, these roles appear inherently contradictory. It does not seem plausible to maintain a representative democracy if the presidential office is purposely isolated from the public and public opinion. For a foundation that preaches popular sovereignty, political equality and political liberty, it appears that the initial role of the presidency, as outlined by the framers, violates, at minimum, the first two principles of a democracy. Furthermore, how could an entity, such as the president, represent the ideals of our nation if there is no direct contact with the public?

Evidently, the presidential office has dramatically changed to encompass responsibilities not initially envisioned by the framers. The presidency has since become extremely democratized, in a way where the presidency has become a popular office in a way that ties it to the American public. The increased power attributed to the president seems to be justified through the increased participation and interaction between presidents and the public. Even though this direct contact runs the risk of manipulating public opinion, it emphasizes overall government-public relations and clarity, as well as a duty to the public and to satisfying the public. To express and represent this communication and potential for influence, a multitude of polls are utilized to gage the popularity of the president. For example, the presidential job approval reflects the percentage of Americans who believe that the president is doing a good job, versus a poor one. Ultimately, this rating affects the effectiveness of a president with congress, the judicial branch, and elected officials, both at the state and local level.

Presidential job approval ratings illuminate the anticipated trend that good news will make the president more popular while bad news will make them less popular. In good times, the presidential job approval should be, and often is, high. If the public’s general sentiment is regarded with a high degree of contentment, the public will invariably support presidential actions supplemented by this apparent increase in responsibility and power. On the other hand, the opposite is true in that if public sentiment is poor, as it pertains to the president, more conflict is subject to arise. As noted via the Pew Research Center, Trump has an overall approval rate of 34%, with a 59% disapproval rate. As such, public confidence is greatly diminished in Trump’s handling of various policies. This discontent likely will lead to resentment against the somewhat-recent spike of presidential powers, that eventually poses the potential threat of congressional-presidential conflict, otherwise known as “gridlocks”. The ambiguous yet continuously adaptive responsibilities and powers of the American Presidency is yet another source fueling the public’s general sentiment regarding the overall functionality and success of our democracy, and thus I believe it is critical to formulate an all-encompassing depiction of the role of the president to ensure utter clarity and effectiveness.

Kendall Crispin says:

November 26, 2017 at 8:46 pm

As you said with the framers, the role of the presidency has changed over the years. The only thing that keeps them in check is the constitution, which is overseen by the Supreme Court. This is an example of the Checks and Balances, which is a key part of the presidency. Overall, according to Gallup Polls, throughout the years, there have been differing approval ratings. There is no trend. This reinforces the idea that our presidency has changed roles and continue to adapt to the times. The approval rating is key to our democracy, especially with the retrospective voting model. It is unfair that times can be a dictator of a president, but that is untrue with Trump because he has done specific things to upset people.
The president is able to communicate to the public because of the media. The first of the media was done through Fireside Chats, which was done by Franklin D. Roosevelt. People are able to get more valuable information, a condition of popular sovereignty, which helps people better form opinions to be able to rate the president. With the rise of technology, this information keeps growing, thus helping us form our opinions and shape the president to the way the majority wants him to be.

Omar Ibrahim says:

November 26, 2017 at 11:02 pm

You bring up an interesting point of public opinion and the potentially corrupting influence it can have. I remember during one of our class lectures when we were speaking on President Trump and his influence on public opinion in regards to the NFL situation, when Dr. McGowen said, “How much influence do you think he has?” Which is actually a very compelling question and could go back and forth all day. The argument can be made that the president influences the public’s opinion, or that the opinion of the public influences the president, which could be seen as a reason to why the role of the president in expanding. Presidents get votes by appealing to people, and people want the presidents to carry out what the promise. If the majority of people are holding the president to this standard, then naturally his role will grow. So, when talking about the growth of the presidents position and public opinion, it could be argued that public opinion could be corrupting what the intended role of the president was, or it could argued as the democracy growing at the will of the people.