Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
60 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
How are Presidents classified? |
Great (Lincoln, Washington, FDR) Near Great Above Average Average Below Average Failure |
|
|
What determines a president's legacy? |
1) Historical context (whether a context that gives them a “moment”) -- Transformative eras 2) Agendas put forth and successfully executed 3) Signature policies 4) Effects on institution of presidency (how they shaped it, what their role in it was – failed presidents didn't have much power) 5) Personal characteristics (corruption, height) 6) How they deal with crisis (significant with Cuban Missile Crisis) 7) Partisanship |
|
|
Role of President |
President is omnipresent so everything going on in the world around us is shaped by who is in office (not much goes on that doesn't have a tie to who is in office) |
|
|
Cuban Missile Crisis |
- WHY SU PUT IN MISSILES - WHY US RESPONSE - PROCESS OF RESPONSE ON US SIDE (who were the actors, what steps and rationales for those steps, how was response organized) |
|
|
Takeaways from CMC about presidency |
- keeping values is important - need to investigate all perspectives and have open deliberation - global ramifications of president's actions - need to put self in the position of other global actors (even the opponent) BROUGHT THE STAKES OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE MOST EXTREME, A DECISION OF MANKIND ENTIRELY |
|
|
Revolutionary Period view of the Presidency |
- Felt Brit King stripped them of freedoms, against strong executive authority in general - Most offices not very powerful, negative light for exec power meant put most power in legisl. branch - Early Rev. period not exactly a national government, more a confederation of power (not conducive for good law making -- chaotic, soon clear needed nat. government) - REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD = LEARNING PROCESS FOR GOVERNING - Federalist Papers designed to convince NY voters to ratify Constitution, spoke to many different parties at the same time - Convention debates = window to how presidency would be constructed itself - Anti-Federalist papers were the anti-Constitution presence, a common sentiment (not just extremist, many surprising people like Patrick Henry sided), with general reservations but also specific concerns about pres. power; overall fragmented message/group which limited their reach and led to failure |
|
|
Federalist Paper #10 |
- Madison - How factions mean need national government - discusses the criticized disadvantage of factions and turns it into a way that a constitution would actually be an advantage - addresses and RECOGNIZES concern that factions are inevitable and you can't get rid of them, but suggests that rather than having small republics or democracy, need a larger republic that will mediate those differences in the common, national interest - Can't remove causes of factions because its self-interest of different opinions that are engrained into people by nature → so have to control the effects of factions - control the effects not by democracy (allows self-interest to pervade) but need to elect a wise medium who will then vote on policy based on national interests - this ensures that its not just a one-party ruling class because all parties/factions may have interests against each other in one way but they all inevitably have an interest in working together --> so CAN'T just all be separate, need to have a national government and suggests a model that would ensure it is fully representative and accountable |
|
|
Federalist Paper #51 |
- Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers - Problem of the time = need stronger government, but fear monarchy situation - Solution = Fragment government into judiciary, legisl., exec branches each with their own will, constituency, terms, modes of election, etc. - Each branch will likely do whatever possible to promote its will as much as possible (as the popular criticism of government suggests) but won't encroach on each other because of checks on each other - Captures idea of ambition to actually capture ambition → taking the issues & fears about human nature and making it actually work for the country (taking the concern that government does as much as possible to promote itself and making it a positive → making it something that works) |
|
|
Federalist Paper #68 |
- Modes of Appointment - by Hamilton - Mediate popular voice with elite (today's electoral college) to avoid corruption and self-interest and make sure the country runs smoothly - Based on the goal of producing a government that will run well, avoid corruption, self-interest, and disorder - Need to represent popular voice but createa separate layer subject to elitevoice/guidance (elected by the people to represent them, who are ableto deliberate etc.) - NOT A CHECK ON POPULAR VOICE, BUT AN EXPRESSION OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME ISSUES |
|
|
Federalist Paper #70 |
- Argument for a unitary executive (single president) - Hamilton - Single president: 1) ensure accountability in government 2) enable the president to defend against legislative encroachments on his power 3) *ensure "energy" in the executive* (strong enough - via eagerness and activity, and competance - to carry out laws) -- key to good governance - Executive needs energy to ensure security (needs to be strong enough to carry out laws, a united and competent force that is eager and active --> activity and eagerness) --> BUT can't be more powerful than the people (needs to be dependent on the people), needs to still be accountable - WHY SINGLE NOT MULTIPLE PRESIDENTS: 1) not subservient to legislature, 2) not hostage to self-interest of individuals, 3) always accountable and easy to take corrective action- a single president, elected with a popular vote mediated by an elite electoral college allows the president to be an effective "final object of public wishes" |
|
|
Federalist Paper #73 |
- Hamilton - Veto Power VETO FUNCTIONS: 1) Anexecutive check against unwise legislative decisions (legislativebranch encroachments on executive's energy) 2) Anincentive to make good legislatureOVERALL MAKES IT SO PREFERENCE FOR PASSIVE GOVERNANCE SUBJECT TO GENERAL CONSENSUS RATHER THAN ANYTHING SWIFT --overall inefficient process but still influential
- Shield against/ stops legislative branch from encroaching on energy of executive branch - Threat of veto makes an incentive for what sorts of legisl/gov't decisions are made (though is an overall inefficient process) - Prefer a more passive governance thats not too swift/rash, one that HAS to be subject to larger agreement/general consensus |
|
|
Federalist Paper #77 |
- Hamilton - Appointment powers - Appointments to executive branch subject to senate approval - FUNCTIONS OF SENATE APPROVAL: 1) Serves to check presidential favoritism (stops president from just appointing his favorites to exec positions) 2) House is too mutable (too many people, constantly coming in and out/changing, would be subject to passions of the moment rather than actual needs for a 4 year office) |
|
|
To what extent would the founders approve contemporary presidency? |
Would they expect continuity/their standards even given our new circumstances or OK changes? -Conservatives argue hold to constiti. - Others argue look at social implications - Founders couldn't forsee how circumstances would evolve, so kept constit. relatively vaguely worded, and open to interpretation/evolution over time (amendments OK, etc.) - New nuclear situations, not enough time for Congress to intervene given speed of threat Would founders be OK with executive order, or see it as abuse of pres power? - Founders didn't expect exec to become the central political instit --> which is why its so short and vague compared to legistlative power in the constitution |
|
|
How has the presidency changed over time? |
- Over time pres has become the unquestioning leader CONSTITUTION BASED ON SENTIMENTS OF FOUNDING PERIOD: Skeptical of exec power, felt legislatures could be just as bad (so checks on everyone) - gave president certain express powers/duties/roles, all with certain checks, etc. Over years, exec has expanded past these express roles and has taken on 3 degradations of parameters (constitutional, stewardship, prerogative). Overall characterizable in 2 main period: Traditional and Modern |
|
|
Convention Deliberations |
- Window to construction of presidency itself (during the process of creating Exec in Constitution) - Debates over Executive Branch (power, size, electing authority, election process, veto power, and shared Senate powers) POWER (weak or strong exec) For weak: SHERMAN - exec should be subservient to legislature (only an institution for carrying out legisl.) - Cong. should appoint exec (WON) and be allowed to change size of office at own will For strong: WILSON - should have single president (WON) SIZE (single or plural exec) For Single: - Single man feels extreme responsibility, would administer public affairs best - Issues with British came from their control over war and peace, and legislative powers. So separation of powers ensures won't be the same as British - actual safeguard against tyranny - secrecy, dispatch (speed/ efficiency), vigor, energy, responsibility, accountability For Plural: - Single has potential to become a dictator/king - Once degenerates to single principle, people will fight against it --> multiple presidents from all over can assuage different interests (have 3 men from different districts of the states) - Single not enough energy to do everything executive has to do ELECTING AUTHORITY (Congress or states; no movement for direct pop) Longest issue for them to solve For Congress: - Using Congress indirectly gives people a say - House rather than Senate, because even though House is more unstable, its most reflective of the ideas of the people at that time; also least susceptible to factions of power - Using states would make it so larger states have disproportionate influence on deciding president For States: - Using Congress would make president answer to/ servant of Congress - Presidency becomes subject to same divisions within Congress – getting caught up in Congress' divisions lessens president's legitimacy EVENTUAL COMPROMISE OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE WON b/c placated both small/large state issues, Electoral college a medium between non-congress ideas, |
|
|
Anti-Federalist Papers |
Patrick Henry Speech "Shall Liberty or Empire Be Sought?" - Constitution gives up all democratic voice and peoples' ability to challenge tyrants to Congress ("arms are to be provided to Cong. who may or may not furnish them") - America's main point was liberty, which is now being taken away and turned into an empire - People can't trust/rely on government to provide them their rights, or trust that it won't turn oppressive 1) Felt a president with enough ambition could turn power absolute with these reservations; 2) PRES AS A MILITARY KING (not only king, but a dangerous one) - US Pres military control makes the US even pres more dangerous than some kings - Should pres turn tyrant, even underlings will become subservient/not willing to stand up --> checks fail and pres = king with a subservient army and aristocratic congress (“How diff is that from what we just left in Britain?”) |
|
|
Presidential Express Roles/Duties, and Bush |
1) Chief administrator – overseeing all the departments, like the CEO - widely expanded by Bush, who pushed idea of "unitary executive" pres has absolute control over exec branch and control over subordinates (power to remove, etc.); challenges Cong. oversight on admin power 2) Commander in Chief – power to lead in war, overall war powers shared with Congress (who declares war) though over time pres has assumed exclusive power in "times of emergency" 3) Chief diplomat - gov'ts main agent in the world; makes treaties, nominate ambassadors, etc. which all require collaboration with Senate - though in recent years working around this with executive agreements (instead of treaties) so don't need senate approval -- Iran nuke deal 4) Chief legislator - before 1921 didn't exist (only exec legisl. role was negative - veto), until Cong. passed to have pres make annual fed budget, has expanded today and pres routinely make legisl. agenda presented to Cong. 5) Chief magistrate – interprets and executes the law/Constit (leads in how laws are implemented) → controversy on pres. Leeway in implementing laws Congress disagrees with (signing statements by Bush actively not enforcing legisl.) BUSH TOOK ALL ROLES VERY BROADLY, SINCE CONSTIT. DESCRIBES POWER AS PERMISSIVE RATHER THAN CONFINING, AIDS IN EXPANDING POWER, AND ONCE EXPANDED HARD TO DEFLATE (Obama still does these broadly) |
|
|
Three theories of expanse of presidential power |
Provide general parameters for how expansive pres power can be given the vesting clause that just says "All exec power vested to pres" 1) Constitutional - pres. power is strictly limited to enumerated or granted powers by Constit. and Congress (express powers only) - e.g., Taft 2) Stewardship - pres can do anything not explicitly forbidden by Constitution or by Congress - more expansive, pres can do anything legally allowed - e.g., Teddy Roosevelt 3) Prerogative - pres can do anything not forbidden and anything forbidden if its in national interest - most expansive, has serious concerns for all Founders - taking actions that are illegal because national interests at stake - e.g., Lincoln, Nixon, GWB |
|
|
Signing statements |
- When signing a law, president can include own position on it and how he chooses to go about executing it (even sometimes actively disobeying it) - an e.g., of pres role as chief magistrate but one that goes beyond legal bounds into Prerogative realm - GWB |
|
|
Presidency: Traditional Period vs. Modern Period, - features, - factors of change - significance / "institutional presidency" and "presidential culture" |
Traditional Period (First 100 years) - Pres. power relatively limited; Cong. = primary policy maker - Legislative branch is the first and most detailed of all within Constit. - "1st among equals" - dealt with the most matters - Turning point: FDR and the positivist state - pres can lead efforts of state providing services for people; redefines fed. gov't as more expansive and uses the exec. branch increasingly as the one to do this Modern Period (starter from FDR, continued with Reagan, etc.) - Pres dominance in policymaking process, significant expansion of pres powers and resources FOUR FEATURES: 1) Pres expected to develop a legisl. program and persuade Congress to enact it 2) Pres directly engage in policymaking via circumventing Cong. approval 3) Pres office now a bureaucracy designed to allow previous two (pres as policymaker w.o Cong) 4) Presidents symbolize nation & personify gov't so that public holds them primarily responsible and closely monitors them in media DONE VIA: 1) Individual presidents creating expansive pres power precendents (Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR) 2) Statute (Congress) as pres given more responsibilities in policy process, etc. e.g., requiring pres to submit annual federal budgets) 3) Custom and Practice - via congressional-pres relations (giving pres power to withdraw public land because congress never said can't), pres as not just a gov't leader but a party leader (becomes isolated as partisan, also allows pres to rise above party identifiers and gain greater/wider influence) 4) Things of the times- communication, media (leading voice of gov't), president as a symbol - someone to look up to, serve as a unifying figure (embodies the gov't and takes the brunt of pos/neg public opinion on all gov't action) SHIFT TO A MORE "INSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENCY" --> FAR MORE STAFF, from 103 -> 5,000 staff members ISSUE IN MODERN PERIOD OF EXPANDED PRES ROLE: Presidential culture (view of pres as office to deliver us from danger because of pres' greatness) makes it so we place unreasonable expectations on president (beyond the institutional, practical/political capabilities of the president) |
|
|
Virginia Plan |
- written mostly by Madison suggesting potential changes for national government - called for an executive (w.o specifying size or tenure) selected by the legislature, with unclear powers - shows the uncertainty around an executive power in early conceptions of a national gov't |
|
|
Vesting clause, Constitutional Language, and Convention compromise on exec powers |
- Used "president" because it historically has been used to describe passive defense/guardianship, rather than strong executive power -- trying to sugarcoat the exec power and make it more palatable to people
- vesting clause saying what powers are vested in each branch -- much more vague in president than Cong. "All Exec powers are vested in pres" versus "All legisl. powers herein granted are vested in Congress" - vagueness of vesting clause has been a "joker card" in allowing expanse of pres power, because whereas judicial and legisl. are limited by "powers herein", the lack of this disctinction has made it so pres not limited to enumerated "herein" powers --> creates 3 main theories of what presidential power is - came from a compromise that ult. favored strong exec model than weak TABLE ON P. 12 ABOUT WEAK/STRONG MODELS AND WHAT ULTIMATELY WAS DECIDED (in favor of strong) |
|
|
WHAT MAKES PRESIDENCY SO VARIABLE? AND WHY POLITICAL |
PRESIDENCY AS CHANGEABLE: 1) Public office where the personality, character, and political style of incumbent makes biggest difference (OFFICE IS MOST SHAPED BY THE CHARACTER OCCUPYING) 2) Extensive responsibilities makes it so heavily influenced by changes outside office (Congress & courts, political parties & interest groups, public & media, national security & economy) PRESIDENCY AS POLITICAL: Even in prerogative power, presidents are forced to govern via political maneuvering -- have to PERSUADE |
|
|
Clinton Rossiter & the imperial powers of the president |
- Rossiter believes presidency should be viewed akin to kingship (president as a strong leader) - power of president resembles power of a king as he is leader of many areas --> added all up would basically be overall role of a king 1) Leader in Congress (the one who sets agenda, proposing what Congress has to consider) 2) Leader of Political Party (a politician who makes deals, etc.) 3) Leader of Public Opinion (country's moral spokesperson) 4) Leader of rituals of US democracy (acting as the Chief of Staff & figurehead of government) - Because president is simultaneously leading these roles/areas all the time, we should embrace a broad role for the president given this setup of the office - pres is the executive leader and in charge of war & peace forces domestically and abroad, etc.; a strong leader whose broad role we should embrace |
|
|
Neusdat "Presidential Power" |
- Pres power is not a measure of formal powers (like Rossiter suggests) but about his personal capacity to influence decisions of other actors - Pres power is ability to persuade, which is done through bargaining (give and take) - Separate institutions sharing equal power makes it so everyone has own interests, will, constituencies, etc., will only follow pres authority if it suits them --> so president needs to convince other actors that his goal helps their interests - Can't just command people because this has a divisive effect, nobody will listen and if you just order them it goes against their interests (forced desegregation in Little Rock) - Interests fragmented because government fragmented (designed this way) - President is a clerk not a king --> a public servant who must respond to and provide direction for the demands of various constituencies: 1) Executive branch officials 2) Congress 3) Political Party supporters 4) Citizens at large 5) Foreign governments affected by US MORE IN NOTES |
|
|
Skowronek |
- Rossiter, Neusdat, and "Imperial Presidency" (that presidential power has not only gotten too strong but is illegal/unconstitutional) all evaluate president agency too much on formal powers and personal characteristics and neglect importance of context - Political agency, periodization, and constitutionalism - Political agency NOT a matter of individual actions/traits, but subject to the broader political order and social situations they find themselves in; the situations of the previous regime that they inherit - Can't split into traditional v. modern, but need to consider the political time - the political context he finds himself in and relationship between president and his control on what actions are embraced (based on what came before him, peoples perspectives on previous administration) - To understand presidency, can't just look at president himself or formal powers, need to look at the situation hes in --> this will determine his authority, and therefore action - If elected in repudiation of a failed previous president, will have great leeway and authority to change policies - When understanding presidents through time, can compare them by comparing the circumstances they found themselves in based on 4 typologies (Politics of Reconstruction, Politics of Disjunction, Politics of Pre-emption, and Politics of Articulation) |
|
|
Political Time |
- political context, - president's relationship to the establishment of various interests and authority hoisted upon him - president's ability to construct where we are as a nation/people, and where we're going as a nation/people - Doing this sets in motion a direction, puts a vision forward about kind of political action that we seek and embrace to achieve that vision (all of which is dependent on moment at hand) HOW A PRESIDENT CAN CONTROL THE MEANING OF ACTIONS AND DETERMINE WHAT ACTIONS ARE EMBRACED BASED ON A CERTAIN VISION, WHICH IS ALL DETERMINED BY THE POLITICAL CONTEXT - e.g., Reagan as a repudiator to previous failures of Carter's "liberalism" made him very successful - politicalconditions a president finds himself in that will either strengthenor weaken pres's authority (NOT just about who he is, not aboutformal structures that determines president's behavior) - Pres authority strengthened when have previous regime that appears to have failed (bad presidency that didn't do good job, election an effort to repudiate that regime (vote him out of office or vote against his party) the incoming president is in a stronger position of power; pres elected through repudiation is in a position to reconstruct policy, has a greater deal of authority and more leeway. |
|
|
Skowronek's typologies for political time |
Based on whether affiliated/opposed to incumbent political ID, and whether dominant political commitments are solid/vulnerable 1) Politics of Reconstruction: - Opposed to incumbent's political ID; dominant political/regime commitments are vulnerable - previous regime collapsing/repudiated due to policy choices gone wrong - time when constraints on incoming president are weakest, largest degree of authority - e.g., Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Reagan, Obama 2) Politics of Disjunction: - Affiliated with incumbent political identity, vulnerable regime committments - Affiliated president at end of regimes reign, find selves in need of reform but handcuffed by typical constitutional constraints, more likely to face emboldened opposition (limited by government operations) - Only thing at their disposal is promise of reform (Carter tried making reforms and saying its not that liberalism can't work but that need better operations) as remedy for the situation, but insufficient against larger currents that they face (swept up in larger wave that changes face of politics at the time) - Carter e.g., --> tried to maintain his party's liberal values, but confidence for this largely waning (no longer popular) - e.g., JQA, Pierce, Hoover, Carter 3) Politics of Pre-emption: - opposed to incumbent ID; resilient regime commitments - outside party coming in at time of dominating opposition - have to seek an independent path to establish political ID's because facing opposition within party and outside (hard to develop coherent message/agenda) - create a more moderate policy but get lots of retaliation hit from both sides - e.g., Nixon, Clinton (a dem. forced to move center as "New Democrat" who had to interact with Wall St. etc b/c of conservatism of time) Politics of Articulation: - affiliated with incumbent ID; resilient regime commitments - effort to bolster prevailing regime (status quo) - continuing whats being done - Hillary trying to say this as Obama's next logical continuation (though others criticizing her for Pre-emption based on Clinton) - e.g., LBJ |
|
|
Memo to New President |
- power = command and force - leadership = compliance and persuasion - Difference between personal characteristics, formal powers, and timing/circumstances they're put in --> all of this determines the "package" a president puts together and the building blocks for how to look at presidency |
|
|
Front-loading |
- a recent change - when states move primaries to earlier spots in the schedule - requires lots of early organization and campaigning - lengthens overall process |
|
|
Superdelegates |
Elected and party officials who attend the convention by virtue of their leadership positions |
|
|
Phases in Presidential Nominee Selection Process: |
1) King Caucus/ Congressional Caucus 2) Nominating Conventions/ National Party Conventions 3) Primary and Caucus System |
|
|
King Caucus/ Congressional Caucus |
1)King Caucus Phase/ Congressional Caucus (1800-1824) - Candidates selected by Congress (indirect democracy) - Congressional leaders seen as best to exert expert judgment - Selected candidate had advantage as Washington insider - Disadvantages → violates separation of powers as legisl. has power over exec (essentially deciding who is president based on who is nominee); “political elite” nominating body makes it exclusive and insulated from larger pop (disproportionate influence of certain people in Congress) |
|
|
Nominating Conventions/ National Party Convention Phase |
2)Nominating Conventions/ National Party Convention Phase (1828-1968) - Began with Johnson's “corrupt bargain” election where won popular votes but didn't get electoral college (lessened confidence in previous system) - Nominations come from state parties - Decentralized power in hands of state party bosses - Disadvantages: regional favoritism (pick candidates from their states, makes a large state-level influence on office as mostly governors seen as viable candidates) mostly because thought would be able to control them if win since owe their career to their state party; Party leaders bargaining for nomination, brokering their power/influence with delegates for a price = “brokered conventions”; Smoke filled rooms, still being decided by political insiders |
|
|
Primary and Caucus System |
3)Primary and Caucus System (1972 – present) - Nomination mostly determined by party electors (not party officials) - A further decentralization into the hands of voters themselves - Using primary for people to vote for popular preference, translated into convention delegates; and party caucus or local meeting of party members also informs delegates - Previous conventions seemed too undemocratic, party officials not representative enough of all the diff groups within a party (Now have quotas in Democrat party for women, nonwhite etc.) - Problems with democratic functions in this system: 1) Premium on party activists (turnout usually more ideologically extreme than mainstream party members, not wholly representative of the party at mainstream level, so may not select most viable candidate to get party votes for general election) 2) Primacy placed on money – expensive to run a campaign in this system, need to campaign early and set up a strong infrastructure to organize and pick the state delegates you'll want → need to get in states early enough to set up the infrastructure necessary to get the delegates you want |
|
|
Invisible Primary |
- Initial stage of nominating - Being perceived as a viable candidate before any votes actually cast; all about raising money and organizing early enough to put up reputation, get press coverage and get name out there - Affected by what the primary schedule looks like → if its spread out, or whether its front-loaded; need to know what schedule is so can prepare, as will if front-loaded will need lots of campaign finance early on - Affected by campaign finance → if not much $$ / generally not well known, will spend a lot early on to boost reputation and win this “invisible primary” - Affected by type of people candidate attracts as workers → getting the most talented and experienced campaign workers; endorsements from high profile figures |
|
|
Picking Delegates and Early Stages |
1) Invisible Primary 2) Early contests and primaries – first tests of voter sentiment 3) Super Tuesday – March 8, when lots of primaries on the same day 4) Mist clearing – after Super Tuesday, lots of candidates drop out after it is either clear they do not have enough of a following, or do not have enough money to continue, frontrunners emerge and greater emphasis placed on collecting delegates - With collecting delegates, in smaller states candidates meet with voters on personal level (retail politics) and in larger states rely on media advertising (wholesale politics) |
|
|
National Convention |
- Where actual nomination occurs, usually just seen as delegates ratifying the results of primaries – recently changing - Made of party insiders who create committees: 1) Credentials Committee - Determines whether to accept slate of delegates from each state (who gets slated per state) 2) Rules Committee - Determines rules for how convention will proceed (process for what is required to get nomination) - Overall able to affect how and who gets nominated in a significant way - State election laws impact this as they decide how to do election/ what liberties delegates get at convention - Important business people, community people, fundraisers, etc. are dynamics that go into picking delegates - Local politics a very democratic institution but also impacts national politics because its the root of national convention (who will be the delegates), also gerry-mandering - Convention serves as a rally for the party, introduces candidates to people who have not been paying attention yet (starts general election, and leads candidates to pivot to center) |
|
|
Flaws of Electoral College to Validate Vote |
Ways the Electoral College can misfire in who is elected - When people vote in GE, voting for which slate of electors pledged to support the party's candidate will vote - All electoral votes go to candidate with plurality of votes statewide 1) EC doesn't ensure person with most popular votes becomes president (2000 Gore had more pop votes than Bush) 2) If no candidate wins majority electoral votes (hasn't happened in over 100 years) 3) Faithless elector - An elector doesn't cast ballot for the candidate who wins state's popular vote; usually state laws make sure this doesn't happen but instance in 1988 where was issue Not necessarily 1 person=1 vote; vote may not have same impact if live in a more populated state (gets premium) and if in a red/blue state |
|
|
Long- and Short-Term Influences on Campaigns |
LONG TERM ELECTION INFLUENCES: - Partisan loyalty no longer a major determinant of election outcome -> means that candiates have to target wider audiences - Social group membership a big influence (candidates try to tap into this by targeting certain groups - South, Catholics, etc.) SHORT TERM ELECTION INFLUENCES: - Public very influenced by candidate personality, etc. so try to put out a good image of self, and bad image of opponent - Stance on issues |
|
|
"Going Public" |
- issuing campaign-like appeals for citizen support rather than the traditional strategy of bargaining with other elites - response to new role of media in politics, but also an effect of the modern gov't that is divided (pres as diff party than congress) --> so less likely to go public when unified gov't (because don't want to embarrass your party - only used when opposition) - 1st stage = "warning shot," not an outright public appeal yet but dropping hints in the media hoping to bring Cong. to table --> if this fails, then 2nd stage = going public - forcing compliance from government by going over heads directly to constituents (seen by Teddy Roosevelt saying its a "bully pulpit" to set the tone of American life and be a steward to people) - an increasingly popular strategy for modern presidency in information age, previously stigma'd b/c institutional design kept pres insulated from public, as well as culture - demonstrating leadership through direct appeals to the public to influence other gov't actors (like Congress) - promote self and policies to Washington by appealing to public for support - Often used where president is in diff party than dominating in Cong, etc. -> use public appeal to support themselves - KERNELL: says unhealthy use public too soon, use the last resort first, so close self off to bargaining and compromise - Today, very upfront to public, harder to work things out because once public makes decision its hard to get to compromise (smaller the crowd, less opinions/interests involved, the better) ASPECTS: - permanent campaign (always trying to gain support) - presidency as a platform (TDR, public opinion as a tool for support) - going international (travelling abroad gets appeal domestically and abroad) - always an end game (trying to get leverage in congress) - very coordinated and "dramatic appeal" - a "rally event" during crisis that gives president immediate popularity boost and policy influence (helped by media's benign framing) |
|
|
Sources of Public approval for Presidency |
1) Constitutional basis (formal) - - symbolic respect/reverence for the office itself (even in criticism) beyond the man -> respect for office as the head of exec 2) Unique role of Office of President - - people have psychological attachment to the president, as provides clarity / makes politics comprehensible - Look to president during tragedy for hope and reassurance (especially post-9/11) - not a formal constitutional role, but one that everyone feels - initial basis for admiration of president formed in early childhood = "political socialization", children feel president as both powerful and benevolent 3) As policymaker- - People look to competency of policies to determine whether they approve president so far or not |
|
|
Tracking Public Opinion of Presidency (and effectiveness) |
Short term: - Post-election "honeymoon period" = highest ratings, more about expectations than results (time of most political capital, - Mid-term election lowest rating, expect results and disprove when not delivered - Overall dynamic: individ. pres popularity declines as administration goes on via decay curve BUT while popularity declines, effectiveness increases because more experienced --> decreasing political capital but increasing skill makes difficult for things to get done still Long term historical decrease in pres approval poss b/c: 1) General decline in gov't trust in US (ppl more aware of problems in gov't with media, etc now so blame politicians) 2) Divisions in country (no longer a large voter landslide like in past, where elections have EC essentially all voting red/blue --> now much more variability as people entrenched in certain positions of political climate) |
|
|
Decay Curve |
Trend in which presidential approval ratings high at start, but ratings decline as administration goes on because people get deflated from high expectations and president's lack of ability to meet those expectations |
|
|
How does "Going Public" violate Neusdat's "bargaining president"? |
1) Rarely includes the exchanges necessary for the functioning of US political system (usually superfluous) 2) more akin to force --> doesn't give benefits for compliance, but does make costs for noncompliance (NO REWARD FOR COMPLYING BUT A COST FOR NOT) - invoking public as third party means doesn't give them a reward for complying but does bring vengeance of both pres and public if they don't 3) entails public posturing - fixes position so little room for future compromise (greater fragmentation, so hard for future bargaining) 4) undermines legitimacy of other politicians - questions their claim to rep. interests of ppl NO LONGER 1) ISOLATED FROM PUBLIC PRESSURE NOR AS TIGHTLY BOUND WITH 2) ESTABLISHED BEHAVIORAL NORMS FOSTERS POLITICAL RELATIONS VERY DIFFERENT THAN BARGAINING (essentially threatening and using force to get what want) --> antithetical to bargaining b/c adversarial, not collaborative |
|
|
Presidency as a platform |
- Pushed by Teddy Roosevelt - Wilson saw public opinion as an implied power of the exec and tool for rallying support |
|
|
Modern trends in how presidents appeal to public |
1) More minor appeals by president, fewer major appeals today (not as many major press conferences - smaller, not as much of an event) 2) Lots of political travel, going around as a major figure, honor and prestige attached to a presidential visit 3) Changes in media -> rise of "surrogate"/ chatting class of president - people speaking on behalf of president to promote his agenda via the White House's scripted "message of the day" 4) Technological changes enable presidents to get grassroots support/electoral assistance (getting work out there, president puts self out there in person more electronically, on TV, going on Colbert, etc.) to show they're just another person --> humanizing element that creates appeal |
|
|
Going International |
- efforts by president to monitor and build public opinion abroad AND domestically - recent years much more international travel, puts him in role of Chief Statesman and unwritten rule can't criticize him b/c where negotiating with other leaders have to support your leader - So generates positive coverage at home, when abroad have armor to criticism - Also shapes abroad opinion, as e.g., Bush putting pro-US coverage in Iraqi newspapers, etc. |
|
|
White House Press Office |
- Created by Roosevelt in 1933 - maintains day-to-day contact with the reporters on the White House (gets word out about day-to-day activities) - reactive to external events, responds to media questions about the WH - Press secretary the most important person in this, the "mouth" of the presidency to the public, who the public hears the most from (serve 3 constituencies -- president, WH staff, and media) |
|
|
White House Office of Communications |
- created by Nixon in 1969 - proactive - sets the public agenda and ensures team follows that agenda, setting the "word of the day" - invisible to the public (does behind the scenes stuff), stages presidential events, coordinating surrogates and communication across exec offices, putting the thought into message planning |
|
|
Permanent Campaign |
- breaking down distinction between governing and campaigning even if not near an election - style of putting self out there and "going public" has taken on more of a campaign style than governing one (a continuous quest for public approval) - campaigning is by nature adversarial, and governing supposed to be collaborative (so hard to govern based on this then -- very diff from Neusdat) |
|
|
Constraints of "Going Public" |
1) Politically embarrassing/damaging if fail to successfully "go public" 2) Has to be popular for it to work 3) Have to prepare to deal with resentment in Congress once you do it, as its essentially a threat to Congress' electoral base (their prime motivation, hitting Congress where hurts the most) 4) Usually a last resort, even where it is useful its a strategy born from weakness (when bargaining, dealmaking, or merit alone fail to serve ends) |
|
|
Presidential character, similarities and differences through time |
- Similarities -> - Mostly educated, wealthy, governor/senator, white, male - Differences -> - more moderate social/econ background now, recent bias to more than just college (elite colleges), bias towards experience in political offices (progressively larger constituencies) but that only prepares them to a point, doesn't prep for indirect skills (negotiating) necessary for pres -----> NEUSDAT: not about how much experience but how good that experience is, whether it preps you to negotiate etc. - general trend for both parties to elect ppl who will preserve status quo |
|
|
Early Political Theorist Views on Human Nature & Government versus modern |
Aristotle -- democratic city-states, ppl create society via interactions with each other Plato -- Masses need philosopher-kings Macchiaveli & Hobbes -- people are self-interested and need strong rulers to temper self-interest Locke -- people are rational and can build collective into institutions/ beneficial form of gov't Rousseau -- peoples basic needs, have a general will that can be governed for MORE MODERN THEORIES --> - look at more complex interactions, Freud and psychological approach; Adorno looks at authoritarian personality (authoritarian ppl product of harsh upbringing); Glasswell says elite behavior to build self-esteem and build past deprivations |
|
|
PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MAKING |
- unlike regular person, pres is at top of food chain, going to be dynamics within that structure that influence him --> actors within that structure that isolate the president, - understanding presidency requires understanding presidential character, who he is within the thrust of national politics - what makes hard to analyze is |
|
|
Ways to assess presidential character and his behavior |
1) Look at president's personality (shaper of his behavior on important matters) 2) Presidential personality considered patterned (character, worldview, style all fit together as a sort of package) 3) President's personality interacts with power situations he faces (climate of expectations for president, how it exerts pressure on him and how his personality makes him deal with it determines his actions) 4) Early life stages and the style from first political success, how his package was put together in first place |
|
|
BARBER ON ASSESSING PERSONALITY OF PRESIDENT --> 1) style 2) worldview 3) character --> CHARACTER MADE UP OF ENERGY AND AFFECT CHARACTER makes up positive/negative vs. active/passive CHARACTER may color/influence worldview/style but doesn't directly determine them |
STYLE: how he behaves in political roles, likely to be determined from early on in his career, HOW HE WORKS WITH PEOPLE AND PROBLEMS WORLDVIEW: principle of relevant beliefs, core philosophical ideas that shape his behavior WHAT HE BELIEF |
|
|
Management style |
- How a president structures and uses their advisory system in making decisions can be either FORMALISTIC --> ( Nixon) clear division of labor, well-defined and carefully controlled flow of info to pres COMPETITIVE --> (FDR) conflict between advisors thriving on diverse opinions COLLEGIAL --> (KENNEDY) group problem solving, shared responsibility |
|
|
Multiple Advocacy |
decision process that says presidents should learn techniques to follow in managing advisors GET LOTS OF OPINIONS (time consuming) |
|
|
Character according to Barber |
affect (positive negative) vs. energy (active passive) ACTIVE POSITIVE --> self-confident, power used as means to get great results JFK Active Negative --> intense effort but low emotional reward; trying to escape from something with hard work; GWB first term rigid, compulsive, Nixon Passive positive --> Compliant, looking to be agreeable, Obama, Reagan Passive Negative --> vague, not doing much and not getting any emotional reward, looks at what shouldn't do rather than suggesting what should be done, GWB (second term) |
