1l
Ill()NlA\(
l{()NlN Nll( llAl.t (;l.N(}\IsL
(
tiorrr rllegrl conduct-so long, et lcest':rsWatcrgltc
deter tutr.rrcl)resrdcttts
reurarned.r vivid utcurory. We h.l'c notcd that corruptloll JPPcrrsto vlslt
thc Whitc Housc in fitry-ycar c;'cles. This suggcststhlt exposurc lnd
rctriburiou inoculate the Presidcncyagailist tts latetrt crirriinal inrpulses
for about helf a ccntun'. Around the year 2tt23 the Anierican peopie
rvould be '"vclladviscd to go orr thc .rlert atid st.irt nailing dorvn everl'tliing
rn sight.
33
THOMAS
MICHAEL
From
CRONIN
GENOVESE
Tfte Parodoxes oJ the Amctican
Ptesideney
'['ltt
L ' l i t t t l S t , t t L - i, . t -ri l r t r l f l i ) r i, r / p , t r , l d o . t t ' ,iis a t l n n t . f r t ' q l l f t l t l ) ' l i - \ r d r t )
txplairt rht' .t,ttrttdi(ttotts-fitutrd rlvotghout .4nu'rit:tltl lili'. ln att tarlicr
st'lt,ttitttt, Ilirlnrt'l Ktlrrnn?fl tallt'd '4.lntrirruts "peoplt' ttf patadttx." Herc,
'l'lnnuts
Ortnin ,nd trIithatl Certot't'st' ttst tlrc rciltcpt
politital -irit'rt/i-it-s
tlf lrurrrrltr.tto e.rp/trn' tht' ttr,rttf irtr.tqe-trltrtt ritl--t'a-r httld o-f tlu'ir prc:idurt'
Earlt in,tgt' thty tlrsrrihc is ,tttttntPanit'd by a crtntrary irnagt. Fttr examPle,
Cronin dnd CL'n()tt(s('not(', thc prtsitlut i.t -trlppost'd ti he "n ,tveralt
pr'rsorr-irrst /ilrc rr-r,l,/rilt'-sinwltant'ously bdrlq otrstdnding alr.l extraorditary
LVith srrth parudoxital {.\p('rl.lltd/l.i ttl- a prtsulut,
.4nu'rirarrs-jud,{c tlft' txt:tt'tliut' so harshly?
Tut
rs it ,rrry wondet tlut
tvttNtr sLAI\(.HF-s t:()l{ answcrs to thc conlPlcxities of
htc. We otten gravit:itc tou'erd sintplc cxplar-rations tbr the *'orld's lrlystcri e s . T h i s i s a n l t u r a l w a y t o t r y a n d t n a k e s e t r s co u t o f a ' , v o r l d t h a t s e e m s
to dcf-v understanding. We are unconrfortable rvith cotltradictions so we
rcduce rerliry to understandable sintplifrcattons. And vcr, cotrtradictions
and clashing cxpectations are Part ot-lrte. "No aspcct oitocicty', rlo habit,
c u s t o l n , s r o v e n l e n t , d e v e l t r y r r l e t r t , i s w i t h o u t c r o s s - c u r r c l l t s , " s a V sh l s t o r i a n
llarbar;r Tuchnreu. "st.rrvinq pcJsrltts in hovels livc alongpide prospcrous
(lhildrcrr are neglected and children are loved."
landlords in lcatherbcds.
ln litb rvc are cotrfiotrted
Thc
with
paradoxes lbr u'hich
rl'e seek tlreaning.
sanre is true for the Anrcric.tlr presidcrlel'. We adnrire prcsidential
po\L'cr,yct tcar it. We yearn for thc hc'roic, vet )rc also rtthcrently susPlclous
l t t r i l r / l t , / ' , r r , r , / , t . r ,o' l l l t , . l n t t n t , r , t l ' | r 0 r r / r ' r i r )
ll.J
o t - r t . W c d c t t t l r t d d y r r . r r t r rlrc' . r d c r r l r r p\ ,' c t q r . r n t o r r l y l r r r u c c dp ( ) w c r st o
thc prcsident.We want prcsrcicnts
lnalystslnd listencrs,
to bc cirspessrorr.rtc
yct they nrust also bc decisivc. Wc erc inrprcssedwith presidenrswho
have great selicontidcnccJ yct we dislikc arrogance and rcspect thosc who
expressreasonableselt-doubt.
Horv therr are wc to nrakc scnseoi the prcsidency?This conrplcx,
nrultidirrrcnsional,evclr contradrctory rnstitution is vitel to the Anrerrcan
systemof govcrnnlcnt. The physicaland political laws that scern to constrain one president, libcratc irnothcr. What provcs successtulin one,
leadsto tarlure rn ilnothcr. Rathcr th.rn seckrng one unifying thcory of
presidentialpolrtics thar answcrs all :ur clucsrions,we believe that the
Anrerican presidencynright be bett.'r understood as a scriesoiparadoxes,
clashingexpectatiollsand contradrcrions.
Leaderslive with conrradictions.Prcsrdents,r)rorc than rrrostpeople,
lcrrn to take advlntage of contrary or divergent tbrces. Leadership situations conrrnonly requrre succcssivedisplaysof contrasting characteristics.
Living with, even cnrbracing, concradictr()nsls a sign oi pohtical anc
personalniaturiry.
The etlcctive leaderundcrscandstheprescllce oiopposites. The aware
leader,nruch like a tirst-rate conductor, knows when to bring in various
sections,krrows when and how to turn thc volunrc up lnd down, tnd
learnshow to balanceopposing sectionsto achicvc dcsiredresults.Eliecrivc
presidentslearn how to nlanage these contradictions and givc nreanrng
and purpose to confusing and oficn clashing cxpectatiorls.Thc rrovelist
E Scott Fitzgeraldonce suggestedthat, "The test oi:r tirst-rlte intelligence
is the abiliry to hold trvo opposed rdeasin thc ruind ar rhe same rime."
Casey Stengel, long-tinre New York Ylnkee rlan:rgcr and occasional (if
accidental) Zen philosopher, capturcd thc csscnce of thc paradox when
he noted, "Good pitching will alwaysstop good hrrting, and vice versa."
Our expcc[atrons of-, and denrands on, rhe prcsident arc fiequently
so contradictory as to invrte two-taccd bchavior by our presidents. Presidential powcrs are ottcn not as grert as nrany oi us believc, and the
president [iets urlustlv condentncd as rnetlecrive. Or ;r president will
overreach or rcsort to uniair play r.r'hiietryirri4 to live up to our demands.
Thc Constrcution is of littlc help. The firunders purposely left the
presidcncyinrpreciselvdcfined. This r,r,as
due rn part to thcir tbarsof boch
thc monarchy and the l)lasscs,arrd rn part to rheir hopes that tuture
presrdentswould create a more pow,crful ofiice than the tianrers were able
to do at the tirue. They knew that at tinres thc president would have to
move swittlv and effectivcl1,,yet they went ro considcrable lengths co
avoid enumcrating specific powers :rnd duties rn order to calm the then
rl.t
I l l ( ) N l n\ ( l ( ( ) N l N
Nll( I lAl | (,l N( )\ | \1. \
w r d c s p r e e df l ' a r o i r r r o r r l r h
t l . A t t c r a l l , t l r c r r . r t r o r rl r . r . ll r r s t t i r u g l r t . r
-l'hus
war againstcxecutive ryranny.
thc ;raredoxot'thc invcntron ot-the
presidency:To get the presidencyapprovcdrn 17tl7 and l TtilJ,thc fianrcrs
had to leave several silences and ambiguities tbr ibar of portraying the
office as an overly centralized leadership institution. Yet when we need
central leadership we turn to the presidenr rnd read into Article II of
the Constitution various prerogatives or inhercnt powers that allow the
president to perfornr as an effective national leader.
Today the intbrmal and symbolic powers of thc presidency account
fbr as much as the fornral, stated ones. Presidential powers expand and
contract rn responseto varying situationaland tcchnologicalchanges.The
powers of the presidency are thus interpreted so differently that they
sornetinressecnrto be those oidillerent otlices.ln sorneways the modern
presrder.rcyhas virtually unlimited iluthoriry tbr alnrost anything its occupant choosesto do with it. ln other ways, a president seenrshopelessly
ensnarled in a web of checks and balances.
Presidentsand presidentialcandidatesrnusr consrantly balance conflicting dernands,crosspressurcs,
and contradictions.It is characteristicof
the American nrind to hold contradictory ideas without bothering to
resolve the conflicts between then-r.Perhapssollle contradictions are best
leti unresolved, especially as ours is an impertect world and our political
system is a complicated one, held together by countless conrpronrises.We
may not be able to resolve many of these clashrng expecrarions.Some of
the inconsistencicsin our judgments about presidentsdoubtless stern from
the many ironics and paradoxesof the human condition. Whrle drllicult,
at the least we should develop a better understanding of what it is we ask
of our presidents, thereby rncreasing our sensitiviry to the limits and
possibilities of what a president c:rn achieve. This rnight fiee prcsidents
to lead and adnrinister more efcctively in those critical tinres when the
nation has no choice but to turn to thent. Whether we like it or not, the
vitaliry of our democracy depends in large nleasure upon the sensrtrve
interaction of presidential leadership with an understanding public rvilLng
ro listen and willing to provide support. Carefully planned innovation is
nearly irnpossible without the kind of leadership a conrpetcnt and fairminded president can provide.
The following are some of the paradoxesof the presrdency.Some are
casesof contused expectations. Some are casesoi wanting one krnd of
presidential behavior at one time, and another kind later. Still others stem
fiom the contradiction inherent in the concept ofdenrocratic leadership,
which on the suriace at least, appearsto set up "democratic" and "leadership" as warring concepts. Whatever the source, each has implications
I r , r u r / l t , l ' , t t , t , 1r,r, ' , ' / l l r r . l n t t n t , u t I ' r , ' t , h r t ,1
tor prcrttlctttt.rl 1tt'rlornt.utte
.ttttl lttt ltorr
ll'r
Atttt rt,.llt\ -ltl(lu( prt'sttlctttt.tl
succcsserrd t.rrlurc.. . .
l)arttdttx# /. Arrrcrrcansdenrand powcrful, poptrlar prcsidentrallcadership that solvesthe n;rtion'sproblenrs.Yet wc are itrhcrcntly suspiciousof
strongcentrahzedleadcrshipand cspcciallythc abuscoipou'er and thcrelore we place srgnrfrcant lirnits on thc president'.spowers.
We adnrire power but fear it. We love to unload rcsponsibiiities on
our leaders,vet wc intensely dislike bcing bossed around. Wc expect
impressiveleadership fronr presidents,and we sinrultaneously impose constitutional,cultural, and pohtrcal rcstrrcttonsot) thenr. These restrictions
oticn prcvcnt presrdcntsfrorrr livrrrg up t() our c\pc('taciorls.. . .
Presidents are supposed to tbllow the laws and rcspect the constitutional procedures that were designed to restrict therr porver, yet still they
must be powertul and efiective when action is needed. For example, we
approvc oi presidentral nrilitary initiatives and covcrt operations when
they work out wcll, but we criticize presidcnts and ilrsist thcy work morc
closcly with Congress rvhen the initiatrves lail. We recognize the need
for secrecy in certain governnrent actions, but we rcscnt being deceived
and left in the dark-f,gain, cspecially whcn thing's go wrong, as in
Reagani Iranran arms sale diversions to thc (lontr:]s.
Although we son)ctimes do not approvc ot'the way l prcstdent acts,
we often approve of the end results. Thus Lrncolu is often critrcized
for acting outside the hnrits of the Constitution, but at thc sanre tinlc
he is forgrven due to the obvious necessirytbr hinr to violatc certaitr
constitutionalprinciples in ordcr to prescrve thc Urtrort. Fl)l\ r"as often
flagrantly deceptive and manipulative not only of his political opporlents
but also of his staffand aliies. FDR even rclished pushing people around
and toying with thern. But ieadership elicctivencssrn the end often comes
down to whether a person acts in ternrs of the hrghest interests of the
nation. Most historians conclude Lincoln and Roosevelt were responsible
in the use of presidential power, to preserve the Union, to fight the
depressionand nazism. Historiarrsllso concludc that Nixon was wrong
for acting beyond the law in pursuit of personal power. . . .
Paradox#2. We yearn fbr thc denrocratic "contnron person" and aiso
for the uncomnlon, charrsmatic, heroic, visionary perfbrmance.
We want our presidents to be like us, but bctter than us. We likc to
think America is the land where the cotnnron sense of thc comnron
person reigns. Nourished on a diet oi Frank Oapra's "comllron-man-ashero" movies, and the literary celcbration oithe averagecitizen by authors
such as Emerson, Whitnran, and Thoreau, wc prizc the comnron touchThe plain-speakingHarry Trunran, the up-tionr-thc-log-cabin "man or
i l(,
I ll( )NlA\ ( l(( )NlN
Ill(
lt.,\l | (,1 N( )\ I \[
w o l l l J n o f t h c p c o p l c , l s c n t r (r r r g .I - c w o f u : , l r r > r r e v c sr ,c t t l cl o r . r r r l t l r r r r g
but the best; wc war)t presldcntsto succccd ar)d \r'c hr-urgcrfirr brrlhant,
uncomnron, and senuregalpcrtbrrrrancestiont prcsrdencs.
...
It is said thc Anrerican pcople cravc to bc governed by a prcsrdcnt
who is greater than anyone else yet not bcttcr than thenrselvcs. We are
rnconsrstent;wc want our presidrnt to be one of the tblks yct also sornething spccial. lf presidents Bet too special, horvcver, thcy gct critrcized
and roasted. If thcy try to bc too tblksy, peoplc get bored. Wc cherish
thc myth that anyone can grow up to bc prcsident, that there are no
barriers and no elite qualiticatrons,but wc don't wal)t sonrcorle who is
too ordinary. Would-be presrdcnts have to prove their special qualificatlons-thcir cxcellence,therr starrrina,and thcir c.lpacirylbr urrcornrlon
leadcrship. Fellow commoner, Truman, rosc to the derrranclsoi the ..1ob
and becanrc an apparently gified decision rnakcr, or so his adnrirers would
have us beiieve.
ln 1976 GovernorJrnrmy ()arter seernedto grasp this contlict and he
ran as local, down-homc, tarnr-boy-next-door rnakesp;ood. The rmage
ofthe peanut tarnrerturned gitted governor contrrbuted greadyto Carter\
successasa national caldidatc and he used it rvith consunimate skill. Early
in his presidentialbid, Carter enjoyedintroducing hirrrselfaspcanut f arrner
anrJ nuclear physicrst, oncc agarn sugllesting he was down to earth but
ccrebral as well.
Ronald Reagan illustrated another aspcct oi thrs paradox. He rvas a
reprcsentativc all-American-small-town,
nrtdwestern, and also a rich
celebriry of stage, screen, and television. He boasted of havrng been a
Democrat, yet carnpaigncdas a Republican. A vcritable Mr. Snrith goes
to Washington, he also had unconrnron srar <iuairry Brll Clinton liked
us to view him as both a Rhodes scholar lnd an ordinary s:r-xophoneplaying mcmbcr of the high school band lronr Hope, Arkansas;as a John
Kennedy and even an Elvrs frgure; and aiso .rsjust another jogger who
would stop by for a Big Mac on thc way horric tronr a run in the
neighborhood. . . .
Paradox#J. We want a decent, just, caring, and cornpassionatepresident, yet we adnrire a cunning, guiletul, and, on occasions that u'arrant
it, even a ruthless, rnanipulativc president.
There is alwaysa fine linc betwecn boldncss and recklcssness,betwcen
strong sell-confidence and what the Greeks cailcd "hubris," betr,r'een
dogged deternunation and pighcaded stubbornness.Oprnion poils indicatc
people want a just, decent, and intcllectua.lly honest individual as our
chief executivc. Almost as strongliy,howevcr, the public also dernands the
qualiry oftoughncss.
b--
tl r'
W r ' i l t . r \ . r t l t u l t i, l r 0 t l t s t \ l, t t t t r r r l t t l . . l i l r l\ .(li l \ ( ' ( ) t l ) r ( ) l ) ( ) l t t t >[ ttttt,t
n ) o \ t o l - ( ) u r g r c . r tl e . r t j c l sl r . r r ' .b . c r r \ ' . l l l ). r r ) r lc r . r t i r .A t t e r l l l , I o u d c l n ' t
g e t t o t h c W l t t t e [ - l o u s cb y ' b c r n u . r u a i i f k r r v c r .M o s t h a ' , ' c . r g g r c s s r v c l y
incluiry or
sought porver :rrtd ucre rlrcly prcoccrrpicd wrth nrct:rplrysrcal
ethic:r.lconsrdcr:rtlons.
Franklin l{ooscvelt's brogr.rphcrs,rvhrlc ernplr.rsrzirrg
his collrpassion
the
Antcrican,
u.rs
vairr,
devrt>us,
.rnd
nunipulative
for
averuge
also.rgrcr hc
passion
Tl'resr,
note,
and had a
tbr secrecy'.
thev
Jrc ol-tcrt thc standard
weaknesses
grcat
:ocial
:rnrl
politic.rl ltlvrnces are
oi
leaders.Srgrrrticant
nrade by those with drivc, arrrbiriorr,nnd a ccrt:llll rmroullt of brash,
irrational selt-conildcncc.
PerhapsI)rvight Ersenhowcr reLoncllcd thcse clashine cxpcctrltions
scductive,benign
bettcr than reccnt prcsidents.lJlcsscdwith a vu'ortdcrtully
srnrle and a reservcd, calrning .|spositron, he r,'.rsalso the discrplined,
strong, no-nonsenseflvc-star gcneral lvrth all thc nrcdelsand victorics to
go along with ir. Hrs ultrnratcrc\ourcr ls prcsidcnt was this recorrciliatron
of dccencv rnd provcn toughncss.hkebrlity rlonlprciedcnronstratcdv.rlor.
Sonre of his brographcrssuggcsthis success\\'rs :rt lcJst partly due t() llrs
uncanny abrhty to appearguileles:to thc public y'ctact rvrth arrrplccurrning
i n p r r v a t c .. .
One of the ironiesoithc Arrrcrrcanprcsrdcrrcyls rhat th()scchar.rcteristrcswc condcnrn in onc prcsidcnt,ue look fi>rrn .rrrr>thcr'.
Tltus a supportcr
otJinrrny Cartcr'soncc sulagcstcd
that Sund;ryrt hool tc;rchcr(l.rrtcr wesn't
"rottcn cnough," "a whcclcr-dcrlcr." ":ur s.o.b."-prccrscl,vthc vrrtues (rf
they can be callcd that) th.rt Lvndon Johnson wJs n)ost criticized fbr a
decade earlicr. PresrdentClinton w.rs vicrved;rs both a grttcd Southcrn
Baptist-:tyle prcachcr by sonre ol- hrs fbllo"vers llrd a rrran rvho was
characterchallensed,by opponcnts. . . .
Paradox#4. We adurire the "abovc polrtics" norrpartisrnor bipartisan
approach, yet the presrdencyrs perhaps thc rnost politrcal ofllce in thc
Anrcrican systcl)),J systcnl in r'"'hichu'c need a ercJtlvc t'lrtreprcncurial
mastcr politician.
The public yclrns fbr r statcslllrr)iu thc Whrtc Housc, tbr a George
Washirrgton or a :ccond "cra ot'good fcelings"-anythlng that nright
prevcnt partlsanshlpor politics .rs usual in thc Wl-ritc Housc. Fornrer
Frenclr Presidcnt Charlcs de (l.rullc once srid, "l'ur ncither ot- the left
nor of thc right nor oithe ccntcr, but abovc." In tact, howcvcr, thelob
of presidcnt denrandsthat thc otliceholder bc a gittcd political broker,
ever .rttentiveto changing politrcal nroods and co:rlitions.. . .
Presidcnts are oiten expected to be above politics ln sollre rcspects
rvhile being hiuhlv polrtic;rl in others. l)residcnts.rrc ncver supposedto
llri
I ll( )NlA\ ( lr( )NlN
Nll( llAI I (,l N( )\ I \
/ lt,
l t , t t , t ' l r r, r r r r / l l i r
l n t t t t t , n ! ! \ r ' t t r l r ' t t r1
i1,,,
J C t\ V l t l )t l t C r rc y c s( ) r )t l l | ' r ) (\ t ( ' l c c t l ( ) r )\ ,c t t l l c r r l ) ( ) \ r r ' rl ) ( ) \ l t l ( ) rttl c r t t a t t t i s
thcy nrust. They arc ncrthcr supposcd to tavor artv perttcrtlarqroup or
parry nor wheel and dcal .rnd rwist t()o nrar)y arnrs. That'.s politics and
that\ bad! Instcad, a president is supposcd to be "presidcnt oi all the
peoplc," above politics. A presidcnt is also asked co lead a parry to help
fellorv parry members get elected or rcelected, to derl firm.ly with parry
barons, intercst group chrettains,and congressionalpolitical brokers. His
abilrry to gain legrslatrvevictorics dependson his skillsar party leadership
and on the size of his party s congressionalrr-rcnrbcrship.
Jirnnry Carter
oncc lamented that "lt\ very ditlrcult lor sonreone to scrve rn this olice
and nrcct the ditiicult issuesin a proper and courageous way and sriil
nraincrrn a cornbination of intercst-lgoup approval that will provide a
l r t t l t t ' . r b s c r r r(')cl J n . l l t c r l ) . t t t \ r ' o f l l t t . olrl l s n t L r t r ( )rt'),.t d c n r a n dt h e t
our presidc'ntact ts I unrf,vingtirrce irr orrr ltvcs. l)crhapsrr all bcgan with
George Washington, ,uvhoso artfllly pertbrn-red this furrction. At least tbr
a while he truly was above pohtics, a uniquc synrbol oiour new nation.
He was a healer, a unifier, and an cxtraordrnary nran tbr severalseasons.
Today we irsk no less of our prcsidcnts than that rhcy should do as
Washington did, and urorc.
We havc'designeda presidenti;rljob dcscnptron, horvcvcr, that often
forcesour conrentp()rarypresidcntsto .rct ;l.snatiorrll drlidcrs. l)restdents
must neccssarrlvdrvrde when thev :rcr as the lcadcrs of their politicar
parties,when they set priorirics ro the :rdvantagcof ccrrain goals and
groupsat che expenseof orhers, whcn thcy fbrgc and lead political coali-
clear rn.r.1oriryat clcction tinre."
'Io
take the president out ot- policicsis to assurtte,incorrectly, that a
prcsidcrrtwrll be generallv right and thc publtc gr'nerallywrong, that a
prcsrdentnrustbe protccted tionr the push rnd shov.'ofpolitical pressures.
But what presidenthas alrv:iysbecn right? Over thc vcars,public opinion
hasusuailybeen assobera guide asanything clseon the political waterliont.
And, lcst we tbrget, having;r presidentconstrainedand ilrtbrmed by public
tions, when thcy move out aherd oipublic opinion and assurnethe role
of national educators,when thev choose onc set <-riadviscrs
ovcr:lnother.
A president,as a crcative exccutive leader,cannot hclp but oflcnd certain
interests.When Franklin Roosevelr wrrsrunnrng fbr a sccorrdrcrnr, sonlc
garment rvorkers unfblded a grcrr siqn that said, "We love hrnr firr tht.
opinion is what dcnrocracy is all about.
I'he tailacy of antipolitics presidenciesis that orth' one view of the
natronel intercst is tenablc,rnd .r presidentlrray pursuc that viev,' only by
ignoring political conflrct and prcssure.Politics. propcrly conceivcd, is
the art oi acconurrodatingthe diversiry and varicty of public opinion to
nreet public goals. Politics is the task of burlding durable coaiitions and
majoritics. It isn't alwayspretty."Thc processisn't irtrnraculateand callltot
always be kid-gloved. A presider.rtand his men nlust reward loyalry and
purush opposition; it is thc onlv v''ay.". . .
I)aritdttx
#5. We want a presidentrvho can unity us. vet the job requires
that necestrking tirnr stlnds, nrakiug urrpopuhr or controvcrstlldecisior-rs
sarily upset and dividc us.
Cilosely relatcd to par.rdr>x#-{, paradox #5 holds that we ask the
presrdent to be a national unitier tnd a hunruri:cr rvhiie at the salne time
ieadcrship. The tasksare near
thc lcrb requires prioriry scttrng and advttta,:y
opposrtcs.. . .
Our nation is one oi the tew in the world th:rt calls on its chief
cxecutlve to serve as rts synrbolic, cerenronial head oi state ,tttd as its
polrtrcal head of governrnent. Elsew'here,thesc tasksare spread around.
ln sonrc nations there is a mouarch and a prinre ltrtntster;irt others thcre
arc three vrsible national lc.rdcrs- a heed oistate, a preuricr, and a powerf ul
oarw chiet-.
\
f'rtrttt
enemies he has made." Such is thc. fhte of a president ()n an evcrvda),
basis;if presidentschoose ro use power thcy wrll lose thc goodwill otthose who prefcrred inactiorr. . . .
Paradox#6. We c\pect our prcsidcnts to pr<tvrdc bold. vrsronery,
rnnovacrve.pfoqrdilun.ttic
leadcrship lnd .rt the sall)s rltllc ro prd.qnhttiulll,
respondto the will of pubhc opinit>n ntr.lorities;that is to s.ly,wc cxpccr
presidentsto lcad and to follow, ro cxcrcise "denrocratic leldership."
We want both pragmatic anrl pft)sranrniatrc lcadcrship. We want
prrncipled leadershrpand flcxiblc, :rtlaptablcleaclers.Itad us,but also /isterr
lo us.
Most people can be led only rvherc thcy want to go. "Authentic
leadership,"v,,rotcJanrcs MlcGrcgor Llurns, "is a collecrive process."[t
emerges tiorn a sensitiviry or apprecirrion oi rhe tlorivcs and 1;oalsof
both tbllorvers and leaders.The tcsr oi leadership,accordinq ro Burns,
"is the rcalization oi intended, real change that nrccts people'senduring
needs." Thus a kcy function oi leadership is "to ensage fbllowers, not
merely to activate thenr, to cornnrrnl3leneeds and aspirarionsand goals
in a comnron entcrprise, and in the pr()ccsstc'rnrakc bcttcr citizens otboth leadcrs and tbllowers."
Wc want our presidentsto ofier lcadcrship, to bc archrtcctsof the
future and to olTer visions, plans, and goals. At thc sanre trmc we rvant
them to stay in close touch with thc scntirrrcntsof- thc peoplc. We want
a certain arrrount oi innovation, bur rvc resist being led roo fir in any
one direction.
llt t
I ll( )NlA\ ( l(( )NlN
Nll( llAl I (,l No\
t,\,
Wc expcct vlgoroLls,itrrttlvltivc lc.rdcrslrrpu hclt crtscsote ttr. ()ttcc
a crisis is past,hou'cver, ue lictluently'treatprcsidertts:tsit-uc didrl't need
or \\,:int thcur around. We do cxpcct presidents to provide us with bold,
crcrtive. and tbrcctirl initi.rtives "to ttrovc us ahcad," but rl'e resist radical
new idees and chrnges "rnd usuaily enrbr:rcc "ncrv" tnitiatives only atter
thcy h.rvelchieved solrlc conscnsrts.
Most oi our presidentshlvc been conservJtivesor at best "prilglltatlc
libcr;rls." They havc seldonr vctrturcd nrr,rchbcyond the crowd. They have
iollor.r'cdpublic opinion ratlrcr than sh;rped it. John F. Kcrrncdv, the
irr (,-ortr,rjc,*'as oticn crtticized tbr
author of the nrueh-acct.tttt..1 prtrfilr'-s
prcscrrtingrttorc profile thltt cour.tge. Hc avoided political risks r'l'here
possrblc.Kcnnedl' u'rs find oi pointilrg out that he had barely u'on
clcttrorr ill l9()(, ln.l thlt great ilrtrol'ationsshould ltot bc ibrccd on the
public by,a lcadcr rvith such a slendertnandatc.PresidentKenncdy is often
.rcditctl r'"rth crtcourrging urdcsprcad public participJtiolt rn politics,
br,rthc repc.rtcdlvrenrindcd Arrrericansthat cautiotr is needcd, that the
rnrportent issucslre conrplic.ited,tcchnical,and best lett to the adnrinistratrve and political cxpcrts. Scldonr did Kcnncdy rttcnlPt to chenge the
political cor)text in rvhich hc oper:rted.lnste;rdhe resisted,"the nen' forttr
o f - p o l t t tst c t t t c r g i n gu i t l r t l r c r r v i l r i g h r t l t t ( ) v c t ) l c l l lt t: l a \ \r ( ' t i ( ) r )d. r g u n l c l l t
on socirl firndanrcntals,.ippe:rlsto constderattonsoijustice and nroraliry
IVlov'irrgthc Arncrican political systeruirt such a dircction rvould neccssarilt' havebcen long range,requiring arduouscducattonalrvork and pronlisrlg \ubstantialpolitical rtsk."
Kcnncdl', thc pragttratist,shied au'ay tiom such an unpragmatic undert.rking. . . .
lead1hr,lrltx# 7. Anreric.urs\\';ultpos'crfirl,self-colrfldent prcsidentr:rl
crship. Yet vvc Jre inherendv suspicrousoi leadcrs *'ho are arrogallt,
r r r i . r l l i b l cl ,r r d a b o v e . r i t i c i . r r t .
We unqncstionablv cherrsh our threc branches oi govertrlnent with
their checksand balencesarrd thcories oidispcrsed and separatedpowers.
We want our prcsidents to be successluland to shlre their porver rvith
thcir cabinets, Congress, lnd othcr "responsible" natlonal leaders. Irr
theory, \,!'c opposc the conccntratron oi power, we dislike secrecy: atrd
\4'ercscllt dcpendrng on anv onc pcrsotl to providc all of our lc:rdership
Ilut Anrcric:tnsalsovcerrt ior dl'nanric.aggressivepresidents-even if
they do cut sonrc conlcrs. We .clcbrate the gutsy prestdentsrvho Inlke
. c p e r ec t v c t h c g r c a t
r p r J et i c c o f m l l r r p u l . r t i t t rrtt t d p u : h i r r L(Il o t t L l r c s sW
'nvl-ro
stretched their lcgal authoriry and dortlinated
presidents to bc tl-rosc
the other branchcs of qovcrrrtrretrt.lt ls still Jeferson, Jackson. Lincoln,
'Whatcver
rrrav have bcen thc
end the Roosevclts rvho sct top billing.
L*
f r t r t r r / / t r ' / ' , t r , l r / r r .,r,r1. t l t r . l t t t t . t t , , t It t t t . : t t l r n r J .
I
::t
t i a r t c r s ' l l l t c a t l ( ) l l \f i r r t h c t l r r e c b r l r r . l r c s , ' r o s t . . . \ p c r t sr . w l g r c e t h a t
nrost oi thc tirne. cspecr.rllt.rn criscs, our \).strr)r works bcst whcn the
presidencyrs strong and whcn wc havea selt-co'fldc.t, Jsscrtivepresidenc.
There is, oi coursc',e tlne lirrc betu,eerrconficlcnce .rrrd arrogance,
between firur'ess a'd inflcxibrliq: wc want prcsidentswho are not afraid
to exert thcrr r.l'ill, but at lvhat poi'r docs this beco're a.tiderrrocratic,
even authorit.rrian?. . .
Paradox#8. What rt takes to bcconrc prcsiderrtnlly n()t bc what
rs
nceded to govcrn the rratrt_lr.
To win a presidcntralclectron tlkcs lnrbition, nlone),,luck, and nlastcr_
tul public relatiorrssrrrrcgrcs.It rcquires the firrrratio, of an clectoral
coalition. To g.vern.r de'rocracy 'cquircs r'uch nrore. It requires the
fbrnration oi a p1rs,1'111;n
coaljriorr, end rlre abiliry ro conrpromise and
bargain.
"Pcoplc who rvi' pri'rlrrcs 'ral bccor'e
good presidcrrcs-but 'it
arn't nccessarilyso"' lvrotc colunrnisr l)avid lJrodcr. "organizing well rs
lnlportant in govcrnrng-;ustJs lr i: rn u,rrrrringprinrarics. But the Nixon
years should teach us that good advance me' do n.t necessarily'rekc
trustworthy white House aides.Estabhshinga govcr'r'cnt is a lirtle 'rorc
cornplicatedthan having thc rnororcadc run on trrrre."
Anrbition (rn hcarrydoscs)r'd srili-ncckcd dctcr'ri'eti.. f,rc csscncial
for a presidentialcandrdarc,
)er roo rr)u!:hot-cithcr carr bc dangcrous.A
candrdatenlusr be bold and encrgctic, but in excessthese charactcrlstics
ca, produce a cold, tic''etic candidatc.To wirr rhe presidcncy obviously
requiresa single-'rndedness, yct our presidentsnrust also have a sense
of
proportlon, be rvcll-roundcd, have r scnse of hunror, be able ro
take a
and have hobbies and interestsoutsiclc the rcahtr of politics.
..1oke,
To wrn the presidency nlany of our candidatcs(Lincoln, Kcnncdy,
and clinton comc to mind) had ro posc as being nrorc progrc\srveor
eve' popultst than they actually ti,lt; to be eflbcrive in the job they are
compcllcd to appcar lrrore caurlous and conservrtivc than they
often
want to be. Onc of Carter\ poiirical strategistssard,.Jimnry campaigned
liberal but qoverned co'scrv,rrive." Antl asBilr clinton pointed our
toward
the end oihis flrst ycer in officc, "we've all beco'rc Eisenhower Republicans.".
we ofren also r.vantborh a "fresh tlce," an outsider, as a preside'rial
crndidate ald :r seasoned,rnlture, cxpcricnced vcteran who knows
thc
corridors of po*'er and the back alleyrveysof Washington. That! why
colin Po"vellliscinated so 'a'y people. Frustrationwith past presidential
perfbrnrancesleads us to turn to l "fiesh new face" uncorrupted
bv
M s h r ' g r o r r s p o h r i c r . r r d i r s " b u . l d y 's ) s r c n ) " ( c a r r c r . R r a g a n , c l i n t o n j .
't)
)
I Il()MA\ (.l(()NlN,Nll( llAl.l (il.N()Vl:l
l t t r n r / l r t / { r ' r ' , , 1t l t r ' l ' h ' l t t : , r t , t rI1\ t' t t , l u t , y
Ilut urexpcriencc,cspccitlly in tbreign :rtlarrs,hes sortretiltlcslcd to blundcrs by the outsiderr. . . .
Paradox#9. The presidency is sonretimes too strong. yct othcr tillres
too weak.
Presidents are granted wide latitude in deahng with events abroad.
At rinres, presidents can act unilaterally, u'ithout the express consent of
Oongress.While the consrirurionalgrounds fbr such rction nlay be dubrous, thc clinrate of expectattons allows presidentsto act dccisively abroad
This bcing the case,the public conles ro think thc prcsident can do the
sanle ar hornc. But this is usually not the case.A clashirlgexPcctatioll is
built into the presidency u'hcn srrengrh rr1 sonrc areas is nlatched with
weakness in other areas.
It oticn secnls that our presidency is alu'aysfoo il/orl8 Jnd 'llwdys too
urcufr.Always too powertul given our worst fears oiryranly and our ideals
..governntcnt by the people." Always too strorlg, as well, because it
of a
thc capaclry to wage nuclear war (a capaciry that doesn't
now possesses
pcrmit nruch in rhe way of checks and balancesand deliberative, ParticiPatory government). But always too weak when we renrelnber nuclear
proliferarion, thc rising national debt, the budget defrcit, lingering discrimination, poverry and the clutch of other tundanrental problerns yet to be
solved.
The presidency is always too srrong when we dislke the incumbent.
Its linritations are bemoaned, however, when we believe the incumbent
is striving valiantly ro serve the public inrerest aswe define it. TheJohnson
presidency vividly captured rhis paradox: many who believed he was too
strong in Vietlranr also believed he was too weak to wage his War on
Poverry. Others believed just the opPosrte. . . .
Ultimately, being paradoxicaldocs not make the presidency incompreherrsible.Can we rid the presidency of all paradoxes?We couldn't, even
if we wanted to do so. And anyway, what is wrollg with some ambiguiry?
It is in enrbracing the paradoxical nature ofthe Anrerican presidency that
we may be able to arrive at undersranding. And with understanding rnay
come enlightencd or constructive criticism. This is the basis fbr citizen
democracv.
22.]
34
CRAIG
RIMMERMAN
Frorn Thc Rise of the Plebiscitary Presidencl
&holurs u,httexanint Anrcrtun prtsidtttts look nttt tttrlyut itrdividualswho
ol
havehdd tlrc positiotrbut alsout trnds tlut nurk dificrtnt itrtr:rprcrations
'l'lrcodttrt
l^twi's
the ofitce. Here, ProJcssorCruig Rimnrcrntut builds ttn
ioncept oJ'the "plcbiscit,tryprcsidorr," itt u,hith rln' prt'sidtnt slcfts ,o
gouerilthroughthe dirttt supportoJ'tfu',Anrrirnr pt'oplt'.Liku,ist', titizens
view the plebisdtdrypresidentyds the_locdlpttitrtoJ',qovt'nmwt artiuity.
Rinnrcrnnn helievesthis vieu' tt, bc ustly diferuil.fiom tfu Constitution's
intent. He trarcsthan{es in the cxccutivt"s
pt>u,u tlvou{h stteral pluse5
to ttn ufid(stdnditry of
mentioningthe rontributionsof prominentsth<rlars
Rooscvc/rto Bush, Rinrtnernnn as&sfti-s
the presidenry.Fnvn President-s
rcadersto tonsiderurejtlly theconsequenrcs
tf suchatt$dlted and unrealistic
vision oj presidentidlpower.
Tur coNsrtrurl()NAL ti.irncrs would undoubtedly be drsturbed by the shift to thc prcsidentiaily ccntered governnrent that characterizes the modern era. Their f-earof nlonarchy led thenr to reject the
concept of executive popular leadership.Instead, they assumcdthat the
legislative branch would occupy the central pohcynraking role and would
be held more easrly accountable through republicrn govcrnment.
Congress has tarled, however, to adhere to the tiarners' lntentions and
has abdicated its policynraking responsibiliry.The lcgisiaturc, with support
liom the Supreme Court, has been all too willing to pronrote the illusion
of presidential governance by providrng the cxccutive with new sources
of power, including a hrghly developed adrr.rinistrativc:rpparatus,and by
delegating authoriry tbr policy inrplenrentation to the executive through
vaguc lcgislauvc statutcs.. . .
The president-centered governmcnt of the urodern, picbiscitary era
draws rnuch of its power and legitinracy tlorn thc popular support of the
citizenry support that is grounded in the development of the rhetorical
presidency and thc exalted rolc of the presidency in the American political
culture. Theodore Lowi is surely on target rvhen he identities "the refocusing of mass expectations upon the presidency" as a kcy problem of presi-