Chapter 12 Government PDF

Great Expectations 12.1 When a new president takes the oath of office, he faces many daunting tasks. Perhaps the most difficult is living up to the expectations of the American people. Americans expect the chief executive to ensure peace, prosperity, and security.4 As President...

Great Expectations 12.1 When a new president takes the oath of office, he faces many daunting tasks. Perhaps the most difficult is living up to the expectations of the American people. Americans expect the chief executive to ensure peace, prosperity, and security.4 As President Carter 12.2 remarked, “The President … is held to be responsible for the state of the economy … and for the inconveniences, or disappointments, or the concerns of the American people.”5 Americans want a good life, and they look to the president to provide it. 12.3 Americans are of two minds about the presidency. On the one hand, they want to believe in a powerful president, one who can do good. They look back longingly on the great presidents of the first American century—Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln—and 12.4 some in the second century as well, especially Franklin D. Roosevelt. On the other hand, Americans dislike a concentration of power. Although presi- dential responsibilities have increased substantially since the Great Depression and 12.5 World War II, there has not been a corresponding increase in presidential authority or administrative resources to meet these new expectations. Americans are basically individualistic and skeptical of authority. According to Samuel Huntington, “The dis- 12.6 tinctive aspect of the American Creed is its antigovernment character. Opposition to power, and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power, are the central themes of American political thought.”6 12.7 Because Americans’ expectations of the presidency are so high, who serves as presi- dent is especially important. Just who are the people who have occupied the Oval Office? 12.8 Who They Are When Warren G. Harding, one of the least illustrious American presidents, was in office, attorney Clarence Darrow remarked, “When I was a boy, I was told that anybody could become president. Now I’m beginning to believe it.” The Constitution simply states that the president must be a natural-born citizen at least 35 years old and must Point to Ponder The public holds high expectations for the president. Do these expectations make the public prone to disappointment? Should we expect less from our presidents? Or should we make it easier for presidents to meet our expectations? 400 have resided in the United States for at least 14 years. Before Barack Obama was Twenty-second Amendment inaugurated as the forty-fourth president in 2009, all American presidents had been Ratified in 1951, this amendment lim- 12.1 white males and, except for John Kennedy, Protestant. This homogeneity conceals its presidents to two terms of office. considerable variety. Over the years, all manner of men have occupied the Oval Office. Thomas Jefferson was a scientist and scholar who assembled dinosaur bones when Twenty-fifth Amendment 12.2 presidential business was slack. Woodrow Wilson, the only political scientist ever to Ratified in 1967, this amendment per- become president, combined a Presbyterian moral fervor and righteousness with a pro- mits the vice president to become act- ing president if the vice president and fessor’s intimidating style of leadership and speech making. His successor, Warren G. the president’s cabinet determine that 12.3 Harding, became president because Republican leaders thought he looked like one. the president is disabled, and it out- Poker was his pastime. Out of his element in the job, Harding is almost everyone’s lines how a recuperated president can reclaim the job. choice as the worst American president. His speech making, said opponent William 12.4 G. McAdoo, sounded “like an army of pompous phrases marching across the landscape in search of an idea.” Harding’s friends stole the government blind, prompting his brief assessment of the presidency: “God, what a job!” Since 1953, the White House has been home to a war hero, a Boston-Irish politi- 12.5 cian, a small-town Texas boy who grew up to become the biggest wheeler-dealer in the Senate, a California lawyer described by his enemies as “Tricky Dick” and by his friends as a misunderstood master of national leadership, a former Rose Bowl player who 12.6 had spent almost his entire political career in the House of Representatives, a former governor who had been a Georgia peanut wholesaler, an actor who was also a former governor of California, a CIA chief and ambassador who was the son of a U.S. sena- 12.7 tor, an ambitious governor from a small state, a former managing director of a Major League Baseball team who had won his first election only six years before becoming president, and a young black man who had served in national office for only four years 12.8 before assuming the role of commander in chief (see Table 12.1). So far, no woman has served as president. As social prejudices diminish and more women are elected to positions that serve as stepping stones to the presidency, it is likely that this situation will change. How They Got There Regardless of their ability, background, or character, all presidents must come to the job through one of two basic routes. ELECTIONS: THE TYPICAL ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE Most presidents take a familiar journey to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: they run for president through the electoral process. The Constitution guarantees a four-year term once in office (unless the president is convicted in an impeachment trial), but the Twenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951, limits presidents to being elected to only two terms. Only 13 presidents have actually served 2 or (in Franklin Roosevelt’s case) more full terms in the White House: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland (whose terms were not consecutive), Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush. A few—Coolidge, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Hayes, and Lyndon Johnson—decided against a second term. Seven oth- ers—both the Adamses, Van Buren, Taft, Hoover, Carter, and George H. W. Bush— thought they had earned a second term but found that the voters did not concur. SUCCESSION For more than 10 percent of American history, an individual who was not elected to the office has served as president. About one in five presidents succeeded to the job because they were vice president when the incumbent president either died or (in Nixon’s case) resigned (see Table 12.2). In the twentieth century, almost one- third (5 of 18) of those who occupied the office were “accidental presidents.” The Twenty-fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, created a means for selecting a new vice president when that office becomes vacant. The president nominates a new vice president, who assumes the office when both houses of Congress approve the nomination by majority vote. President Nixon chose Gerald Ford as vice president 401 12.1 TABLE 12.1 RECENT PRESIDENTS President Term Party Background Presidency Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953–1961 Republican Commander of Allied forces in Presided over relatively tranquil 1950s 12.2 Europe in World War II Conservative domestic policies Never voted until he ran for president Cool crisis management Enjoyed strong public approval 12.3 John F. Kennedy 1961–1963 Democrat U.S. senator from Massachusetts Known for personal style From very wealthy family Presided over Cuban missile crisis War hero Ushered in era of liberal domestic policies 12.4 Assassinated in 1963 Lyndon B. Johnson 1963–1969 Democrat Senate majority leader Skilled legislative leader with a coarse public Chosen as Kennedy’s running image 12.5 mate; succeeded him after the Launched the Great Society assassination Won passage of major civil rights laws Escalated the Vietnam War 12.6 War policies proved unpopular; did not seek reelection Richard M. Nixon 1969–1974 Republican U.S. senator from California Presided over period of domestic policy 12.7 Served two terms as Eisenhower’s innovation vice president Reopened relations with China Lost presidential election of 1960 to Ended Vietnam War John F. Kennedy Resigned as a result of Watergate scandal 12.8 Gerald R. Ford 1974–1977 Republican House minority leader Pardoned Richard Nixon First person ever nominated as Helped heal the nation’s wounds after vice president under Twenty-fifth Watergate Amendment Lost election in 1976 to Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 Democrat Governor of Georgia Viewed as honest but politically unskilled Peanut farmer Managed Iranian hostage crisis Lost bid for reelection in 1980 Brokered peace between Egypt and Israel Ronald W. Reagan 1981–1989 Republican Governor of California Won a substantial tax cut Well-known actor Led fight for a large increase in defense spending Hurt by Iran-Contra scandal Known as the Great Communicator George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 Republican U.S. representative from Texas Led international coalition to victory in Gulf Director of CIA War Ambassador to UN Presided over end of Cold War Served two terms as Reagan’s vice Popular until economy stagnated president Lost reelection bid in 1992 William J. Clinton 1993–2001 Democrat Governor of Arkansas Moved Democrats to center Rhodes Scholar Presided over balanced budget Benefited from strong economy Tenure marred by Monica Lewinsky scandal Impeached but not convicted George W. Bush 2001–2009 Republican Governor of Texas Launched war on terrorism Son of President George Bush Won large tax cut Elected without plurality of the vote Established Department of Homeland Security Began war with Iraq Barack Obama 2009– Democrat Senator from Illinois Dealt with financial crisis First African American elected as Continued war on terrorism president Won health care reform 402 when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, and Ford then assumed the presidency impeachment when Nixon himself resigned. Thus, Ford did not run for either the vice presidency or The political equivalent of an indict- 12.1 the presidency before taking office. ment in criminal law, prescribed Several times a president has become disabled, incapable of carrying out the job for by the Constitution. The House of Representatives may impeach weeks or even months at a time. After Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke, his wife, Edith 12.2 the president by a majority vote for Wilson, became virtual acting president. The Twenty-fifth Amendment clarifies some of “ Treason, Briber y, or other high the Constitution’s vagueness about disability. The amendment permits the vice president Crimes and Misdemeanors.” to become acting president if the vice president and the president’s cabinet determine 12.3 that the president is disabled or if the president declares his own disability, and it out- Watergate lines how a recuperated president can reclaim the Oval Office. A law specifies the order The events and scandal surround- ing a break-in at the Democratic of presidential succession—from the vice president, to the Speaker of the House, to the National Committee headquarters 12.4 president pro tempore of the Senate and down through the cabinet members. in 1972 and the subsequent cover-up of White House involvement, lead- IMPEACHMENT Removing a discredited president before the end of a term is not ing to the eventual resignation of easy. The Constitution prescribes the process of impeachment, which is roughly the President Nixon under the threat of 12.5 impeachment. political equivalent of an indictment in criminal law. The House of Representatives may, by majority vote, impeach the president for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Once the House votes for impeachment, the case goes to the Senate, 12.6 which tries the accused president, with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding. By a two-thirds vote, the Senate may convict and remove the president from office. 12.7 Why It Matters to You 12.8 Standards of Impeachment It is not easy to impeach a president; the threshold for an impeachable offense is a high one. This standard makes it very difficult to remove a president Congress feels is performing poorly between elections. A lower threshold for impeachment would have the potential to turn the United States into a parliamentary system in which the legislature could change the chief executive at any time. The House has impeached only two presidents. It impeached Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, in 1868 on charges stemming from his disagreement with Radical Republicans over Civil War reconstruction policies. He narrowly escaped conviction. On July 31, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend that the full House impeach Richard Nixon as a result of the Watergate scandal. The three articles of impeachment charged that Nixon had (1) obstructed justice, (2) abused TABLE 12.2 INCOMPLETE PRESIDENTIAL TERMS President Term Succeeded by William Henry Harrison March 4, 1841–April 4, 1841 John Tyler Zachary Taylor March 4, 1849–July 9, 1850 Millard Fillmore a Abraham Lincoln March 4, 1865–April 15, 1865 Andrew Johnson James A. Garfield March 4, 1881–September 19, 1881 Chester A. Arthur a William McKinley March 4, 1901–September 14, 1901 Theodore Roosevelt Warren G. Harding March 4, 1921–August 2, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Franklin D. Roosevelt January 20, 1945–April 12, 1945b Harry S. Truman John F. Kennedy January 20, 1961–November 22, 1963 Lyndon B. Johnson a Richard M. Nixon January 20, 1973–August 9, 1974 Gerald R. Ford a Second term. b Fourth term. 403 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 Richard Nixon was the only American president ever to resign his office. Nixon decided to resign rather than face impeachment for his role in the Watergate scandal, a series of illegal 12.7 wiretaps, break-ins, and cover-ups. 12.8 his power, and (3) failed to comply with congressional subpoenas. Soon thereafter, a tape recording of White House conversations provided evidence that even Nixon’s defenders found convincing, and Nixon resigned from the presidency rather than face certain impeachment and a Senate trial. In 1998, the House voted two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton on party-line votes. The public clearly opposed the idea, however, and in 1999 the Senate voted to acquit the president on both counts. The Constitution provides only the most general guidelines as to the grounds for impeachment. Article II, Section 4, says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There is agreement on at least four points regarding impeachable offenses: 1. Impeachable behavior does not have to be a crime. If, for example, the president refused to work or chose to invade a country solely to increase his public support, his actions could be grounds for impeachment, even though they would not violate the law. 2. The offense should be grave. A poker game in the White House, even though it may violate the law, would not constitute an impeachable offense. 3. A matter of policy disagreement is not grounds for impeachment. When Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 and survived conviction by only one vote, the real issue was his disagreement with Congress over the policy of Reconstruction following the Civil War. Johnson’s impeachment is widely viewed as an abuse of impeachment power. 4. Impeachment is an inherently political process. The grounds for impeachment are ultimately whatever Congress decides they are because the Constitution assigns these calibrations to members’ political judgment. Beyond these points of agreement, we enter speculative territory. Thus, in Clinton’s case, the question of what constituted an impeachable offense was hotly debated, as you can read in “You Are the Policymaker: What Should Be the Criteria for Impeaching the President?” 404  12.1 You Are the Policymaker 12.2 What Should Be the Criteria for Impeaching the President? 12.3 hen the story of President Bill Clinton’s sexual liai- As a result, they argued, the president should be removed W son with Monica Lewinsky first broke in January 1998, astute political observers immediately perceived from office through the process of impeachment. The White House fought back. First, the president 12.4 that this was more than a lurid sex scandal involving apologized to the nation and engaged in a round of expres- the president. For although the sex angle attracted the sions of remorse before a variety of audiences. At the most attention, there were also allegations of President same time, the White House accused Starr of an intrusive Clinton committing perjury when questioned about investigation motivated by a political vendetta against the 12.5 the affair and obstructing justice by urging Lewinsky president. The White House argued that the president to lie under oath. These charges would clearly put any made a mistake in his private behavior, apologized for it, private citizen in danger of being indicted in a criminal and should continue to do the job he was elected to do. court. For a president, who cannot be indicted while in Impeachment, the president’s defenders said, was grossly 12.6 office, it meant possible impeachment by the House of disproportionate to the president’s offense. Representatives followed by a Senate trial. In December 1998, the House voted two articles of After months of investigation into the allegations, impeachment against President Clinton on nearly straight 12.7 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a report party-line votes. The articles charged him with lying to to Congress accusing President Clinton of 11 counts a grand jury and obstructing justice. In the Senate trial of possible impeachable offenses, including perjury, that followed, the standards for removing a president obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse from office were hotly debated. Ultimately, neither article 12.8 of power. The president’s detractors used the report received support from even a bare majority of senators, as a basis for charging that he had broken the law, much less the two-thirds threshold necessary to convict failed in his primary constitutional duty to take care him of high crimes and misdemeanors. that the laws be faithfully executed, betrayed the pub- What do you think? If you were a member of the lic’s trust, and dishonored the nation’s highest office. House, would you have voted to impeach President Clinton? Presidential Powers 12.2 Evaluate the president’s constitutional powers and the expansion of presidential power. he contemporary presidency hardly resembles the one the Constitution’s Explore on MyPoliSciLab T Framers designed in 1787. The executive office they conceived had more limited authority, fewer responsibilities, and much less organizational structure than today’s presidency. The Framers feared both anarchy and Simulation: You Are a First-Term President monarchy. They wanted an independent executive but disagreed about both the form the office should take and the powers it should exercise. In the end, they created an executive unlike any the world had ever seen7 (see “America in Perspective: President or Prime Minister?”). Constitutional Powers The Constitution says remarkably little about presidential power. The discussion of the presidency begins with these general words: “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” It goes on to list just a few powers (see Table 12.3). The Framers’ invention fit nicely within the Madisonian system of shared power and checks and balances, forcing the president to obtain the support of officials in the other branches of government. Institutional balance was essential to the convention delegates, who had in mind the abuses of past executives (including both the king and colonial governors) but also the 405 12.1 America in Perspective President or Prime Minister? 12.2 he Framers chose a presidential system of govern- Prime ministers generally differ in background from T ment for the United States. Most democracies in developed countries, however, have chosen a parlia- presidents as well. They must be party leaders, as we have seen, and they are usually very effective commu- 12.3 mentary system. In such a system, the chief executive, nicators, with skills honed in the rough-and-tumble of known as the prime minister, is selected by the mem- parliamentary debate. In addition, they have had sub- bers of the legislature from among themselves, rather stantial experience dealing with national issues, unlike than by the voters. More specifically, the majority party American governors who may move directly into the 12.4 (or the largest bloc of votes in the legislature if there presidency. Cabinet members, who are usually senior is no majority party) votes its party leader to be prime members of parliament, have similar advantages. minister. The prime minister may remain in power for a So why does the United States maintain a presiden- 12.5 long time—as long as his or her party or coalition has a tial system? The Framers were concerned about the majority of the seats and supports the leader. concentration of power and wanted to separate power Presidents and prime ministers govern quite differ- so that the different branches could check each other. ently. Prime ministers never face divided government, More concerned with the abuse of power than its effec- 12.6 for example. Since they represent the majority party or tive use, they chose a presidential system—the first the coalition, they can almost always depend on winning world had ever known. votes in the legislature. In addition, party discipline is better in parliamentary systems than in the United 12.7 States. Parties know that if the prime minister should CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION lose on an important vote, he might have to call for an Would the United States be better off with a immediate election to try to obtain a working majority parliamentary system in which the majority 12.8 under unfavorable circumstances. As a result, members party would have the power to govern and of parliament almost always support their leaders. thus keep its electoral promises? TABLE 12.3 CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT National Security Powers Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces Make treaties with other nations, subject to the agreement of two-thirds of the Senate Nominate ambassadors, with the agreement of a majority of the Senate Receive ambassadors of other nations, thereby conferring diplomatic recognition on other governments Legislative Powers Present information on the state of the union to Congress Recommend legislation to Congress Convene both houses of Congress on extraordinary occasions Adjourn Congress if the House and Senate cannot agree on adjournment Veto legislation (Congress may overrule with two-thirds vote of each house) Administrative Powers “Take care that the laws be faithfully executed” Nominate officials as provided for by Congress and with the agreement of a majority of the Senate Request written opinions of administrative officials Fill administrative vacancies during congressional recesses Judicial Powers Grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses (except impeachment) Nominate federal judges, who are confirmed by a majority of the Senate 406 excesses of state legislatures. The problem was how to preserve the balance without jeop- ardizing the independence of the separate branches or impeding the lawful exercise of 12.1 their authority. The Framers resolved this problem by checking those powers they believed to be most dangerous, the ones that historically had been subject to the greatest abuse (for example, they gave Congress the power to declare war and the Senate the power to 12.2 approve treaties and presidential appointments), while protecting the general spheres of authority from encroachment (the executive, for instance, was given a qualified veto). Provisions for reelection and a short term of office also encouraged presidential 12.3 responsibility. For those executives who flagrantly abused their authority, impeachment was the ultimate recourse. 12.4 The Expansion of Power Today there is more to presidential power than the Constitution alone suggests, and that power is derived from many sources. The role of the president has changed as 12.5 America has increased in prominence on the world stage; technology has also reshaped the presidency. George Washington’s ragtag militias (mostly disbanded by the time the first commander in chief took command) were much different from the mighty nuclear 12.6 arsenal that today’s president commands. Presidents themselves have taken the initiative to develop new roles for the office. In fact, many presidents have enlarged the power of the presidency by expanding the 12.7 president’s responsibilities and political resources. Thomas Jefferson was the first leader of a mass political party. Andrew Jackson presented himself as the direct representative of the people. Abraham Lincoln mobilized the country for war. Theodore Roosevelt 12.8 mobilized the public behind his policies. He and Woodrow Wilson set precedents for presidents to serve as world leaders; Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt developed the role of the president as manager of the economy. Perspectives on Presidential Power During the 1950s and 1960s, it was fashionable for political scientists, historians, and commentators to favor a powerful presidency. Historians rated presidents from strong to weak—and there was no question that “strong” meant good and “weak” meant bad. Political scientists waxed eloquent about the presidency as an institution epitomizing democratic government.8 By the 1970s, many felt differently. Lyndon Johnson and the unpopular Vietnam War made people reassess the role of presidential power, and Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal heightened public distrust. The Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War, revealed presidential duplicity. Nixon’s “enemies list” and his avowed goal to “screw our enemies” by illegally auditing their taxes, tapping their phones, and using “surreptitious entry” (a euphemism for burglary) asserted that the president was above the law, possessing “inherent powers” that per- mitted presidents to order acts that otherwise would be illegal. Early defenders of a strong presidency made sharp turnabouts in their position. In his book The Imperial Presidency, historian Arthur Schlesinger argued that the presi- dency had become too powerful for the nation’s own good.9 (Critics pointed out that Schlesinger did not seem to feel that way when he worked in the Kennedy White House.) Whereas an older generation of scholars had written glowing accounts of the presidency, a newer generation wrote about “The Swelling of the Presidency” and “Making the Presidency Safe for Democracy.”10 The Nixon era was followed by the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, whom many critics saw as weak leaders and failures. Ford himself spoke out in 1980, claiming that Carter’s weakness had created an “imperiled” presidency. Once again, the country sought a strong leader, and in the 1980s many thought it found one in Ronald Reagan. Although Reagan experienced short periods of great influence, more typically he was frustrated in achieving his goals as the American political system settled back into its characteristic mode of stalemate and incremental policymaking. 407  executive orders The Iran-Contra affair, in which some White House aides engaged in illegal activi- 12.1 Regulations originating with the exec- ties, kept concern about a tyrannical presidency alive, while Reagan’s inability, in most utive branch. Executive orders are one instances, to sway Congress evoked a desire on the part of some (mostly conservatives) method presidents can use to control for a stronger presidency. Reagan’s immediate successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill the bureaucracy. 12.2 Clinton, often found it difficult to get things done. The presidency of George W. Bush raised anew the issue of presidential power. He asserted an expansive view of the president’s constitutional powers, including withhold- 12.3 ing information from Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege to encourage candid advice from his aides, issuing statements when he signed new laws asserting the right to disregard certain provisions in them, ordering without warrants electronic surveillance of individuals, and holding prisoners without trial for an indefinite period. 12.4 Once again, critics charged that presidential power threatened the constitutional bal- ance of powers. 12.5 Running the Government: 12.6 The Chief Executive 12.3 Describe the roles of the vice president, cabinet, Executive Office of the President, White 12.7 House staff, and First Lady. 12.8 lthough we often refer to the president as the “chief executive,” it is easy A to forget that one of the president’s most important roles is presiding over the administration of government. This role receives less publicity than, for example, appealing to the public for support of policy initiatives, dealing with Congress, or negotiating with foreign powers, but it is of great importance nevertheless. The Constitution exhorts the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully exe- cuted.” In the early days of the republic, this clerical-sounding function was fairly easy. Today, the sprawling federal bureaucracy spends nearly $4 trillion a year and numbers more than 4 million civilian and military employees. Running such a large organization would be a full-time job for even the most talented of executives, yet it is only one of the president’s many jobs. One of the president’s resources for controlling this bureaucracy is the power to appoint top-level administrators. New presidents have about 500 high-level posi- tions available for appointment—cabinet and subcabinet jobs, agency heads, and other non–civil service posts—plus 2,500 lesser jobs. Since passage of the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921, presidents have had one other important executive tool: the power to recommend agency budgets to Congress. The vastness of the executive branch, the complexity of public policy, and the desire to accomplish their policy goals have led presidents in recent years to pay even closer atten- tion to appointing officials who will be responsive to the president’s policies. Presidents have also taken more interest in the regulations issued by agencies. This trend toward centralizing decision making in the White House pleases those who think the bureau- cracy should be more responsive to elected officials. On the other hand, it dismays those who believe that increased presidential involvement in policymaking will undermine the “neutral competence” of professional bureaucrats by encouraging them to follow the president’s policy preferences rather than the intent of laws as passed by Congress. Presidents also use executive orders to run the government. These orders carry the force of law and are used to implement statutes, treaties, and provisions of the Constitution.11 Harry Truman desegregated the military, John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps, Lyndon Johnson began affirmative action, Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan centralized powers of regulatory review in the Office of Management and Budget, and George W. Bush established military tribunals for terrorists by executive order. 408  This section focuses on how presidents go about organizing and using the parts cabinet of the executive branch most under their control—the vice president, the cabinet, the A group of presidential advisers 12.1 Executive Office of the President, and the White House staff. not mentioned in the Constitution, although every president has had one. Today the cabinet is composed of 14 The Vice President secretaries, the attorney general, and 12.2 others designated by the president. Neither politicians nor political scientists have paid much attention to the vice presi- dency. Once the choice of a party’s “second team” was an afterthought; it has also often 12.3 been an effort to placate some important symbolic constituency. Jimmy Carter, a mod- erate southerner, selected as his running mate Walter Mondale, a well-known liberal from Minnesota, and conservative Ronald Reagan chose his chief rival, George H. W. 12.4 Bush, in part to please Republican moderates.12 Vice presidents have rarely enjoyed the job. John Nance Garner of Texas, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s vice presidents, declared that the job was “not worth a pitcher of warm spit.” Some have performed so poorly that they were deemed an embarrassment to 12.5 the president. After Woodrow Wilson’s debilitating stroke, almost everyone agreed that Vice President Thomas Marshall—a man who shirked all responsibility, including cabinet meetings—would be a disaster as acting president. Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon’s first vice 12.6 president, had to resign and was convicted of evading taxes (on bribes he had accepted). Before the mid-1970s, vice presidents usually found that their main job was wait- ing. The Constitution assigns them the minor tasks of presiding over the Senate and 12.7 voting in case of a tie among the senators. As George H. W. Bush put it when he was vice president, “The buck doesn’t stop here.” Nonetheless, recent presidents have taken their vice presidents more seriously, involving them in policy discussions and important 12.8 diplomacy.13 The relationship between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale marked a watershed in the vice presidency, as Mondale, an experienced senator, became a close advisor to the president, a Washington outsider. In choosing George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan also chose a vice president with extensive Washington experience. To become intimates of the president, both vice presidents had to be completely loyal, losing their political indepen- dence in the process. Although Bush himself chose as vice president Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, considered by many a political lightweight, Albert Gore, Bill Clinton’s vice president, was a Washington insider and played a prominent role in the administration. He met regularly with the president, represented him in discussions with the leaders of numerous countries, and chaired a prominent effort to “reinvent” government. George W. Bush chose Richard Cheney, who had extensive experience in high- level positions in the national government, as his vice president and assigned him a central role in his administration. Cheney advised the president on a wide range of issues and chaired task forces dealing with major policy issues. He also was the focus of criticism, especially from those opposed to his support for the aggressive use of mili- tary power and an expansive view of presidential power. Barack Obama chose Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware as his vice president. Biden had substantial experience in government and became a close adviser to the president, especially on foreign pol- icy. He also represented the president abroad and served as an important liaison with members of Congress. The Cabinet Although the Constitution does not mention the group of presidential advisers known as the cabinet, every president has had one. The cabinet is too large and too diverse, and its members (heads of the executive departments) are too concerned with repre- senting the interests of their departments for it to serve as a collective board of direc- tors, however. The major decisions remain in the president’s hands. Legend has it that Abraham Lincoln asked his cabinet to vote on an issue, and the result was unanimity in opposition to his view. He announced the decision as “seven nays and one aye, the ayes have it.” 409  TABLE 12.4 THE CABINET DEPARTMENTS 12.1 Department Year Created Function State 1789 Makes foreign policy, including treaty negotiations 12.2 Treasury 1789 Serves as the government’s banker Defense 1947 Formed by the consolidation of the former Departments of War and the Navy 12.3 Justice 1870 Serves as the government’s attorney; headed by the attorney general Interior 1849 Manages the nation’s natural resources, including 12.4 wildlife and public lands Agriculture 1862 Administers farm and food stamp programs and aids farmers 12.5 Commerce 1903 Aids businesses and conducts the U.S. census Labor 1913 Formed through separation from the Department of Commerce; runs programs and aids labor in various ways 12.6 Health and Human 1953 Originally created as the Department of Health, Services Education, and Welfare, it lost its education function in 1979 and Social Security in 1995 12.7 Housing and Urban 1966 Responsible for housing and urban programs Development Transportation 1966 Responsible for mass transportation and highway programs 12.8 Energy 1977 Responsible for energy policy and research, including atomic energy Education 1979 Responsible for the federal government’s education programs Veterans Affairs 1988 Responsible for programs aiding veterans Homeland Security 2002 Responsible for protecting against terrorism and responding to natural disasters George Washington’s cabinet was small, consisting of just three secretaries (state, treasury, and war) and the attorney general. Presidents since Washington have increased the size of the cabinet by requesting Congress to establish new executive departments. Today 14 secretaries and the attorney general head executive departments and consti- tute the cabinet (see Table 12.4). In addition, presidents may designate other officials (the ambassador to the United Nations is a common choice) as cabinet members.14 Even in making his highest-level appointments, the president is subject to the constitutional system of checks and balances. For example, President Barack Obama nominated Tom Daschle, a former senator, as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. However, he had to withdraw the nomination after it became clear that Daschle’s tax problems would create a barrier to his confirmation by the Senate. The Executive Office Next to the White House sits an ornate building called the EEOB, or Eisenhower Executive Office Building. It houses a collection of offices and organizations loosely grouped into the Executive Office of the President.15 Congress has created some of these offices by legislation, and the president has simply organized the rest. The Executive Office started small in 1939, when President Roosevelt established it, but has grown with the rest of government. Three major policymaking bodies are housed in the Executive Office—the National Security Council, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Office of Management and Budget—along with several other units that serve the president (see Figure 12.1). 410 F I G U R E 1 2. 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT National Security Council The committee that links the presi- 12.1 dent ’s foreign and military policy advisers. Its formal members are the Office of the The White president, vice president, secretary of The President Vice President House Office state, and secretary of defense, and it 12.2 is managed by the president’s national security assistant. Council of Economic Advisers 12.3 A three-member body appointed by the president to advise the president on economic policy. 12.4 Office of the Office of National United States Management Security Office of Management and Trade and Budget Representative Council Budget An office that prepares the president’s 12.5 budget and also advises presidents on proposals from departments and agencies and helps review their pro- posed regulations. 12.6 Office of 12.7 Council of Office of Science and Economic National Drug Technology Advisers Control Policy Policy 12.8 Council on Office of Executive Environmental Administration Residence Quality SOURCE: White House (www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop) The National Security Council (NSC) is the committee that links the president’s key foreign and military policy advisers. Its formal members include the president, vice president, and secretaries of state and defense, but its informal membership is broader. The president’s special assistant for national security affairs plays a major role in the NSC, running a staff whose responsibilities include providing the president with informa- tion and policy recommendations on national security, aiding the president in national security crisis management, coordinating agency and departmental activities related to national security, and monitoring the implementation of national security policy. The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) has three members, each appointed by the president, who advise the president on economic policy. They prepare the annual Economic Report of the President, which includes data and analysis on the current state and future trends of the economy, and help the president make policy on inflation, unemployment, and other economic matters. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) originated as the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), which was created in 1921. The OMB is composed of a handful of political appointees and more than 600 career officials, many of whom are highly skilled professionals. Its major responsibility is to prepare the president’s budget. President Nixon revamped the BOB in 1970 in an attempt to make it a managerial as well as a budgetary agency, changing its name in the process to stress its managerial functions. Because each presidential appointee and department has an agenda, presidents need a clearinghouse—the OMB. Presidents use the OMB to review legislative 411  F I G U R E 1 2. 2 PRINCIPAL OFFICES IN THE WHITE HOUSE 12.1 The First Lady The President Vice President 12.2 Chief of Staff Deputy Chief of Staff 12.3 Political Offices Support Services Policy Offices 12.4 Counselor Oval Office Operations National Security Affairs Legislative Affairs Staff Secretary Economic Policy Public Engagement Scheduling & Appointments Domestic Policy Political Affairs Advance Travel Preparation Cabinet Affairs 12.5 Intergovernmental Affairs Personnel Counsel Press Secretary White House Operations Digital Strategy Speech Writing Military Office AIDS Policy Research Medical Office Women and Girls 12.6 Media Affairs Secret Service Faith-based and First Lady Correspondence Neighborhood Partnerships Communications Executive Clerk Social Innovation and Telephone Visitors Civic Participation 12.7 Photography Urban Affairs Policy Records Management Maintenance Kitchen 12.8 Social Secretary SOURCE: White House (www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop) proposals from the cabinet and other executive agencies so that they can determine whether they want an agency to propose these initiatives to Congress. The OMB assesses the proposals’ budgetary implications and advises presidents on the proposals’ consistency with their overall program. The OMB also plays an important role in reviewing regulations proposed by departments and agencies. Although presidents find that the Executive Office is smaller and more manageable than the cabinet departments, it is still filled with people who often are performing jobs required by law. There is, however, one part of the presidential system that presidents can truly call their own: the White House staff. The White House Staff Before Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president’s personal staff resources were minimal. Only one messenger and one secretary served Thomas Jefferson. One hundred years later the president’s staff had grown only to 13. Woodrow Wilson was in the habit of typing his own letters. As recently as the 1920s, the entire budget for the White House staff was no more than $80,000 per year. Today, the White House staff includes about 600 people—many of whom the president rarely sees—who provide the chief executive with a wide variety of services ranging from making advance travel preparations to answering the avalanche of letters received each year (see Figure 12.2). At the top of the White House staff are the key aides the president sees daily: the chief of staff, congressional liaison aides, a press secretary, a national security assistant, and a few other administrative and political assistants. The top aides in the White House hierarchy are people who are completely loyal to the president, and the president turns to them for advice on the most serious or mundane matters of governance. Good staff people are self-effacing, working only for the boss and shunning the limelight. The 1939 report of the Brownlow Committee, which served as the basis for the development of the modern White House staff, argued 412 that presidential assistants should have a “passion for anonymity.” So important are their roles, though, that the names of top White House aides quickly become well known. 12.1 Dwight Eisenhower’s Sherman Adams, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Harry Hopkins, and Richard Nixon’s Henry Kissinger, for example, did much to shape domestic and global policy. 12.2 Presidents rely heavily on their staffs for information, policy options, and analysis. Different presidents have different relationships with their staffs. They all organize the White House to serve their own political and policy needs and their own decision- 12.3 making styles. Most presidents end up choosing some form of hierarchical organization with a chief of staff at the top, whose job it is to see that everyone else is doing his or her job and that the president’s time and interests are protected. A few presidents, such 12.4 as John F. Kennedy, have employed a wheel-and-spokes system of White House man- agement in which many aides have equal status and are balanced against one another in the process of decision making.16 Whatever the system, White House aides are cen- tral in the policymaking process—fashioning options, negotiating agreements, writing 12.5 presidential statements, controlling paperwork, molding legislative details, and gener- ally giving the president their opinions on most matters. Recent presidents illustrate significant contrasts in decision-making styles. 12.6 President Clinton immersed himself in the details of policy. He ran an open White House, dealing directly with a large number of aides and reading countless policy memoranda. His emphasis on deliberation and his fluid staffing system generated criti- 12.7 cism that his White House was “indecisive” and “chaotic.” George W. Bush took pride in being decisive and was more likely to delegate responsibility than was Clinton. Bush, however, was less likely to persist in asking probing questions. Investigations into the 12.8 Bush White House’s decision making regarding the war in Iraq have found that the president’s aides sometimes failed to properly vet information and follow other appro- priate procedures. Barack Obama has a deliberative decision-making style that is more orderly than Clinton’s and more likely to challenge the premises of policy advocates than Bush’s. Despite presidents’ reliance on their staffs, it is the president who sets the tone for the White House. Although it is common to blame presidential advisers for mistakes made in the White House, it is the president’s responsibility to demand that staff members analyze a full range of options and their probable consequences before they offer the president their advice. If the chief executive does not demand quality staff work, then the work is less likely to be done, and disaster or embarrassment may follow. The First Lady The First Lady has no official government position, yet she is often at the center of national attention. The media chronicles every word she speaks and every hairstyle she adopts. Although some people may think of First Ladies as well-dressed homemakers presiding over White House dinners, there is much more to the job. Abigail Adams (an early feminist) and Dolley Madison counseled and lobbied their husbands. Edith Galt Wilson was the most powerful First Lady, virtually running the government when her husband, Woodrow, suffered a paralyzing stroke in 1919. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column and tirelessly trav- eled and advocated New Deal policies. She became her crippled husband’s eyes and ears around the country and urged him to adopt liberal social welfare policies. Lady Bird Johnson chose to focus on one issue, beautification, and most of her successors followed this single-issue pattern. Rosalyn Carter chose mental health, Nancy Reagan selected drug abuse prevention, and Barbara Bush advocated literacy, as did Laura Bush, a former librarian. In what was perhaps a natural evolution in a society where women have moved into positions formerly held only by males, Hillary Rodham Clinton attained the most responsible and visible leadership position ever held by a First Lady. She was an influential adviser to the president, playing an active role in the selection of 413 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 Although the First Lady has no official government position, she is often at the center of national attention. In recent years, First Ladies have taken active roles in promoting policies ranging from highway beautification and mental health to literacy and health care. First Lady Michelle Obama gave high priority to supporting military families and veterans. How would things change if a woman were elected president and her spouse was the First Man? nominees for cabinet and judicial posts, for example. Most publicly, she headed the planning for the president’s massive health care reform plan in 1993 and became, along with her husband, its primary advocate. Michelle Obama has focused on a range of issues, which have included fighting childhood obesity, supporting mili- tary families, helping working women balance career and family, and encouraging national service. Presidential Leadership of Congress: The Politics of Shared Powers 12.4 Assess the impact of various sources of presidential influence on the president’s ability to win congressional support. long with their responsibility for running the executive branch, presidents A must also deal intensively with the legislative branch. Near the top of any presidential job description would be “working with Congress.” The American system of separation of powers is actually one of shared powers, so if presidents are to succeed in leaving their stamp on public policy, they must devote much of their time in office to leading the legislature in order to gain support for their initiatives. This effort requires wielding constitutional powers, building party coalitions, exploiting popular support, and exercising legislative skills. 414  Chief Legislator veto Nowhere does the Constitution use the phrase chief legislator; it is strictly a phrase invented The constitutional power of the presi- 12.1 dent to send a bill back to Congress to emphasize the executive’s importance in the legislative process. The Constitution sim- with reasons for rejecting it. A two- ply requires that the president give a State of the Union report to Congress and instructs thirds vote in each house can override the president to bring other matters to Congress’s attention “from time to time.” But in a veto. 12.2 actuality the president plays a major role in shaping the congressional agenda. The Constitution also gives the president power to veto congressional legislation. pocket veto Once Congress passes a bill, the president may (1) sign it, making it law; (2) veto it, A t ype of veto occurring when 12.3 Congress adjourns within 10 days of sending it back to Congress with the reasons for rejecting it; or (3) let it become law submitting a bill to the president and after 10 working days by not doing anything. Congress can pass a vetoed law, however, the president simply lets the bill die by if two-thirds of each house votes to override the president. In cases where Congress neither signing nor vetoing it. 12.4 adjourns within 10 days of submitting a bill, the president can use a pocket veto, that is, simply let it die by neither signing nor vetoing it. Table 12.5 shows how frequently recent presidents have used the veto. 12.5 The presidential veto is usually effective; Congress has overridden only about 4 percent of all vetoed bills since the nation’s founding. Thus, even the threat of a presidential veto can be an effective tool for persuading Congress to give more weight 12.6 to the president’s views. On the other hand, the veto is a blunt instrument. Presidents must accept or reject bills in their entirety; they cannot veto only the parts they do not like (in contrast, most governors have a line-item veto, allowing them to veto particular 12.7 portions of a bill). As a result, the White House often must accept provisions of a bill it opposes in order to obtain provisions that it desires. In recent years, presidents have issued statements when they sign bills, saying they will not comply with certain provi- 12.8 sions and, in effect, vetoing parts of bills. Why It Matters to You The President’s Veto Unlike most governors, the president does not have the power to veto parts of a bill. As a result, presidents cannot choose to delete, for example, items in the budget they perceive as wasteful. At the same time, the lack of a line-item veto helps to maintain the delicate balance of separate institutions sharing powers. TABLE 12.5 PRESIDENTIAL VETOES Percentage Regular Vetoes of Vetoes Pocket Total President Vetoes Overridden Overridden Vetoes Vetoes Eisenhower 73 2 3 108 181 Kennedy 12 0 0 9 21 Johnson 16 0 0 14 30 Nixon 26 7 27 17 43 Ford 48 12 25 18 66 Carter 13 2 15 18 31 Reagan 39 9 23 39 78 G. H. W. Bush 29 1 3 15 44 Clinton 37 2 5 1 38 G. W. Bush 12 4 33 0 12 * Obama 2 0 0 0 2 * as of January 2013 415  There are some bills, such as those appropriating funds for national defense, that 12.1 must be passed. Knowing this, the president may veto a version containing provisions he opposes on the theory that Congress does not want to be held responsible for failing to defend the nation. Nevertheless, the presidential veto is an inherently negative resource. 12.2 It is most useful for preventing legislation. Much of the time, however, presidents are more interested in passing their own legislation. To do so, they must marshal their political resources to obtain positive support for their programs. Presidents’ three most 12.3 useful resources are their party leadership, public support, and their own legislative skills. Party Leadership 12.4 No matter what other resources presidents may have at their disposal, they remain highly dependent on their party to move their legislative programs. Representatives and senators of the president’s party usually form the nucleus of coalitions supporting 12.5 presidential proposals and provide considerably more support than do members of the opposition party. Thus, every president must provide party leadership in Congress, countering the natural tendency toward conflict between the executive and legislative 12.6 branches that is inherent in the government’s system of checks and balances.17 THE BONDS OF PARTY For most senators and representatives of the president’s 12.7 party, being in the same political party as the president creates a psychological bond. Personal loyalties or emotional commitments to their party and their party leader, a desire to avoid embarrassing “their” administration and thus hurting their chances for 12.8 reelection, and a basic distrust of the opposition party are inclinations that produce support for the White House. Members of the same party also agree on many matters of public policy, and they are often supported by similar electoral coalitions, reinforc- ing the pull of party ties. These members also feel they have a collective stake in the president’s success. Of course, the opposition party has incentives to resist the presi- dent. Thus, presidential leadership demarcates and deepens cleavages in Congress. The parties tend to be more cohesive on issues on which the president has taken a stand.18 If presidents could rely on their party members to vote for whatever the White House sent up to Capitol Hill, presidential leadership of Congress would be rather easy. All presidents would have to do is make sure members of their party showed up to vote. If their party had the majority, presidents would always win. If their party was in the minority, presidents would only have to concentrate on converting a few members of the other party. SLIPPAGE IN PARTY SUPPORT Things are not so simple, however. Despite the pull of party ties, all presidents experience at least some slippage in the support of their party in Congress. Because presidents cannot always count on their own party members for support, even on key votes, they must be active party leaders and devote their efforts to conversion as much as to mobilization of members of their party. The primary obstacle to party unity is the lack of consensus on policies among party members, especially in the Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, remarked, “I learned the hard way that there was no party loyalty or discipline when a complicated or controversial issue was at stake—none.”19 When George W. Bush proposed reform- ing Social Security and immigration policy, many congressional Republicans refused to support him. Likewise, when Barack Obama negotiated deals with Republicans on taxes in 2010 and spending in 2011, many congressional Democrats voted against him. This diversity of views often reflects the diversity of constituencies represented by party members. The defections of conservative and moderate Democrats from Democratic presidents are a prominent feature of American politics. When constitu- ency opinion and the president’s proposals conflict, members of Congress are more likely to vote with their constituents, whom they rely on for reelection. Moreover, if the president is not popular with their constituencies, congressional party members may avoid identifying too closely with the White House. 416  12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 Presidents depend heavily on their party’s leaders in Congress to pass their initiatives. Here, President Obama thanks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after signing the Affordable Care Act. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are to her left. LEADING THE PARTY The president has some assets as party leader, including congressional party leaders, services and amenities for party members, and campaign aid. Each asset is of limited utility, however. The president’s relationship with party leaders in Congress is a delicate one. Although the leaders are predisposed to support presidential policies and typically work closely with the White House, they are free to oppose the president or lend only symbolic sup- port; some party leaders may be ineffective themselves. Moreover, party leaders, especially in the Senate, are not in strong positions to reward or discipline members of Congress. To create goodwill with congressional party members, the White House provides them with many amenities, ranging from photographs with the president to rides on Air Force One. Perhaps more important, districts represented by members of the president’s party receive more federal outlays than those represented by opposition party members.20 Although this largesse may earn the president the benefit of the doubt on some policy initiatives, party members consider it their right to receive such favors from the White House and as a result are unlikely to be especially responsive to the president’s largesse. In addition to offering a carrot, the president can, of course, wield a stick in the form of withholding favors, but this is rarely done. If party members wish to oppose the White House, the president can do little to stop them. The parties are highly decentralized. National party leaders do not control those aspects of politics that are of vital concern to members of Congress— nominations and elections. Members of Congress are largely self-recruited, gain their party’s nomination by their own efforts and not the party’s, and provide most of the money and organizational support needed for their elections. Presidents can do little to influence the results of these activities. 417  One way for the president to improve the chances of obtaining support in Congress presidential coattails 12.1 These occur when voters cast their is to increase the number of fellow party members in the legislature. The phenomenon of ballots for congressional candidates presidential coattails occurs when voters cast their ballots for congressional candidates of of the president’s party because they the president’s party because those candidates support the president. Most recent studies support the president. Recent studies 12.2 show a diminishing connection between presidential and congressional voting, however, show that few races are won this way. and few races are determined by presidential coattails.21 The change in party balance that usually emerges when the electoral dust has settled is strikingly small. In the 16 presidential 12.3 elections between 1952 and 2012, the party of the winning presidential candidate averaged a net gain of 8 seats (out of 435) per election in the House and only 1 seat in the Senate, where the opposition party actually gained seats in 7 of the elections (see Table 12.6). Recent presidents have campaigned actively for their party’s candidates in 12.4 midterm elections (those held between presidential elections), and there is evidence that they reap benefits from those members who win.22 Nevertheless, the president’s party typically loses seats, as you can see in Table 12.7. For example, in 1986, the 12.5 Republicans lost 8 seats in the Senate, depriving President Reagan of a majority, and in 1994, the Democrats lost 8 Senate seats and 52 House seats, in the process losing control of both houses.23 The president’s party is especially likely to lose seats in the 12.6 House when the president’s approval rating is low and when the party gained a lot of seats in the previous election. Thus, the Democrats suffered large losses in the 2010 midterm elections, including 6 seats in the Senate and 63 in the House. 12.7 As this discussion suggests, the president’s party often lacks a majority in one or both houses. Since 1953 there have been 30 years in which Republican presidents faced a Democratic House of Representatives and 22 years in which they faced a Democratic 12.8 Senate. Democrat Bill Clinton faced both a House and a Senate with Republican majorities from 1995 through 2000. Barack Obama had to deal with a Republican majority in the House in 2011–2014. TABLE 12.6 CONGRESSIONAL GAINS OR LOSSES FOR THE PRESIDENT’S PARTY IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEARS Presidents cannot rely on their coattails to carry their party’s legislators into office to help pass White House legislative programs. The president’s party typically gains few, if any, seats when the president wins election. For instance, the Republicans lost seats in both houses when President George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Year President House Senate 1952 Eisenhower (R) +22 +1 1956 Eisenhower (R) −2 −1 1960 Kennedy (D) −22 −2 1964 Johnson (D) +37 +1 1968 Nixon (R) +5 +6 1972 Nixon (R) +12 −2 1976 Carter (D) +1 0 1980 Reagan (R) +34 +12 1984 Reagan (R) +14 −2 1988 G. Bush (R) −3 −1 1992 Clinton (D) −10 0 1996 Clinton (D) +9 −2 2000 G. W. Bush (R) −2 −4 2004 G. W. Bush (R) +3 +4 2008 Obama (D) +21 +8 2012 Obama (D) +8 +1 Average +7.9 +1.2 418 TABLE 12.7 CONGRESSIONAL GAINS OR LOSSES FOR THE PRESIDENT’S PARTY IN 12.1 MIDTERM ELECTION YEARS For decades the president’s party typically lost seats in midterm elections. Thus, presidents could not be certain of helping to elect members of their party once in office. The elections of 1998 and 2002 deviated from this pattern, and the president’s party gained a few seats. 12.2 Year President House Senate 1954 Eisenhower (R) −18 −1 12.3 1958 Eisenhower (R) −47 −13 1962 Kennedy (D) −4 +3 12.4 1966 Johnson (D) −47 −4 1970 Nixon (R) −12 +2 1974 Ford (R) −47 −5 12.5 1978 Carter (D) −15 −3 1982 Reagan (R) −26 0 1986 Reagan (R) −5 −8 12.6 1990 G. Bush (R) −9 −1 1994 Clinton (D) −52 −8 12.7 1998 Clinton (D) +5 0 2002 G. W. Bush (R) +6 +2 2006 G. W. Bush (R) −30 −6 12.8 2010 Obama (D) −63 −6 Average −24 −3 Lacking majorities and/or dependable party support, the president usually has to solicit help from the opposition party. This is often a futile endeavor, however, since the opposition is generally not fertile ground for seeking support. Nevertheless, even a few votes may be enough to give the president the required majority. Public Support One of the president’s most important resources for leading Congress is pub- lic support. Presidents who enjoy the backing of the public have an easier time influencing Congress. Said one top aide to Ronald Reagan, “Everything here is built on the idea that the president’s success depends on grassroots support.”24 Presidents with low approval ratings in the polls find it difficult to influence Congress. As one of President Carter’s aides put it when the president was low in the polls, “No presi- dent whose popularity is as low as this president’s has much clout on the Hill.”25 Members of Congress and others in Washington closely watch two indicators of public support for the president: approval in the polls and mandates in presidential elections. PUBLIC APPROVAL Members of Congress anticipate the public’s reactions to their support for or opposition to presidents and their policies. They may choose to be close to or independent of the White House—depending on the president’s standing with the public—to increase their chances for reelection. Representatives and senators may also use the president’s standing in the polls as an indicator of presidential ability to mobilize public opinion against presidential opponents. Public approval also makes the president’s other leadership resources more efficacious. If the president is high in the public’s esteem, the president’s party is more likely to be responsive, the public is more easily moved, and legislative skills become more effective. Thus public approval is the political resource that has the most potential 419  to turn a stalemate between the president and Congress into a situation supportive of 12.1 the president’s legislative proposals. Widespread public support gives the president leeway and weakens resistance to presidential policies. It provides a cover for members of Congress to cast votes to which 12.2 their constituents might otherwise object. They can defend their votes as support for the president rather than support for a certain policy alone. Conversely, lack of public support narrows the range in which presidential policies 12.3 receive the benefit of the doubt and strengthens the resolve of the president’s opponents. Low ratings in the polls may also create incentives to attack the president, further eroding a weakened position. For example, after the U.S. occupation of Iraq turned sour and the country rejected his proposal to reform Social Security, it became more accept- 12.4 able in Congress and in the press to raise questions about George W. Bush’s capacities as president. Disillusionment is a difficult force for the White House to combat. The impact of public approval or disapproval on the support the president receives 12.5 in Congress is important, but it occurs at the margins of the effort to build coalitions behind proposed policies. No matter how low presidential standing dips, the president still receives support from a substantial number of senators and representatives. Similarly, 12.6 no matter how high approval levels climb, a significant portion of Congress will still oppose certain presidential policies. Members of Congress are unlikely to vote against the clear interests of their constituencies or the firm tenets of their ideology out of deference 12.7 to a widely supported chief executive. George W. Bush enjoyed very high public approval following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but Democrats did not support his domestic policy proposals. Public approval gives the president leverage, not command.26 12.8 In addition, presidents cannot depend on having the approval of the public, and it is not a resource over which they have much control, as we will see later. Once again, it is clear that presidents’ leadership resources do not allow them to dominate Congress. ELECTORAL MANDATES The results of presidential elections are another indicator of public opinion regarding presidents. An electoral mandate—the perception that the voters strongly support the president and his policies—can be a powerful symbol in American politics. It accords added legitimacy and credibility to the newly elected president’s proposals. Moreover, concerns for both representation and political survival encourage members of Congress to support new presidents if they feel the people have spoken.27 More importantly, mandates change the premises of decisions. Following Roosevelt’s decisive win in the 1932 election, the essential question became how government should act to fight the Depression rather than whether it should act. Similarly, following Johnson’s overwhelming win in the 1964 election, the dominant question in Congress was not whether to pass new social programs but how many social programs to pass and how much to increase spending. In 1981, the tables were turned; Ronald Reagan’s victory placed a stigma on big government and exalted the unregulated marketplace and large defense efforts. Reagan had won a major victory even before the first congressional vote. Although presidential elections can structure choices for Congress, merely winning an election does not provide presidents with a mandate. Every election produces a win- ner, but mandates are much less common. Even large electoral victories, such as Richard Nixon’s in 1972 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1984, carry no guarantee that Congress will interpret the resul