Presidential Character The Imperial Presidency. What is an Imperial Presidency? Phrase became...

Presidential Character

The Imperial Presidency

What is an Imperial Presidency?

• Phrase became popular in the 1960’s• Presidencies that get “out of control” in

regards to power and influence• Presidencies that have exceeded

constitutional limits

Arguments: Imperial Presidency is Increasing

• Increased staffing = appointments based on personal loyalty to the president, not subject to outside approval– Creates a “royal court” (Nixon, Reagan)

• New advisory bodies developed around the presidency, many of which complemented (critics suggest rivaled) the main cabinet departments– Office of Management and Budget, National Security Council

• The Senate does not "advise and consent" to appts to the Executive Office of the President (with only a handful of exceptions), as it does with cabinet appts. – They are independent and not accountable

• The Presidency relies on powers that exceed the Constitution– Foreign policy and war powers often questioned– Presidential secrecy also questioned

Arguments: Imperial Presidency is Not Increasing

• The Executive Office of the President (EOP) makes up only a very small part of the federal bureaucracy and the Pres has little influence over appts of most members of the federal bureaucracy

• The number of people within the EOP is tiny and there is no institutional continuity at all

• The organization and functioning of most of the Federal government is determined by federal law and the President has little power to reorganize most of the federal government

Is the president’s power really growing? – Maybe Not

• Growth in the size and complexity of the federal bureaucracy• A battery of post-Nixon controls on executive power, including

transparency rules and "watchdog bureaucracies“– Congressional Budget Office

• More willingness to and protection of “whistle blowers”• Changes in technologies/media that amplify the effect of official

dissent, and increase the capacity of opponents to mobilize against executive action

• Declining public trust in federal authority• Declining executive discretion over the use of federal funds,

which are increasingly committed to mandatory programs– More than half the budget

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61)

• Orderly, military style• Delegated authority to

trained specialists• Bumbling manner of

speaking was disguise to avoid being “pinned down” in public

John Kennedy (1961-63)

• Bold, articulate, amusing leader

• Improviser who bypassed traditional lines of authority

• Surrounded himself with talented amateurs

Lyndon Johnson (1963-69)

• Master legislative strategist- great dealmaker

• Washington insider• Tended to

micromanage

Richard Nixon (1969-74)

• Expertise in foreign policy• Disliked personal

confrontation• Deep suspicion of the

media, opponents, and the bureaucracy

• Tried to centralize power in the White House

Gerald Ford (1974-77)

• Discussion-oriented and genial

• Decision structures not always coherent or utilized

Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

• Washington outsider (and proud of it!)

• Tried to micromanage

Ronald Reagan (1980-89)

• Set policy priorities then gave staff wide latitude

• Leader of public opinion– “The Great Communicator”

George H.W. Bush (1989-93)

• Hands-on manager• Considerable

Washington experience

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

• Good communicator• Informal/ad hoc

structure• Pursued liberal/centrist

policies

George W. Bush (2001-09)

• Tightly ran White House• Agenda became

dominated by foreign affairs post-9/11

Presidential “Rules of Thumb”

• Move it or Lose It: get things done early in your term before influence erodes or other things come up

• Avoid Details: better to have 3 or 4 top priorities and not get bogged down with the rest

• Cabinets don’t get things done, people do – so choose wisely and keep an eye on them.