Plebiscitary politics and presidential leadership models in modern Congress

¶ … Congress and Models of Presidential Leadership

The following article presents a discussion on campaigning trends in modern congress with critical emphasis on plebiscitary politics and governing, as well as a look into the application of the following presidential leadership models; minimalist, self- reliant, and strategic competence.

Surname

VICTIMS RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Trends in Modern Congress

Plebiscitary Politics

Robert Dahl, a political scientist, states that Congress is affected by the nature of American politics, which is increasingly becoming plebiscitary. Pushing for plebiscitary politics, Dahl propagates a more direct connection between elected officials and the public as well as the removal of intermediaries -- membership organizations and parties in this case -- that sought to represent public opinion to the officials they elected. If observed more keenly and directly, instead of mediated, public opinion is more crucial-- which is closer to Madison's dreams for the national legislature. New technologies facilitate plebiscitary politics. Developments in the transportation sector enable most members of Congress to go back to their state homes or districts on most weekends. Advancements in computer and telephone technology have made it easy and affordable for the views of the public to get to the legislators through public opinion polls.

On the surface, one might think plebiscitary politics are a good thing: having public opinion to influence the decisions of the members and sway their votes seems better than paying expensive lobbyists who represent organized interests. However, according to Dahl, allowing the people to communicate directly with those representing them on Capitol Hill might not be an advisable thing. Both representation and deliberation may be undermined by plebiscitary politics in legislative policy making. When it comes to representation, those who are likely to make direct communication with members may not be representing the constituency as a whole. They are more likely to be people with a lot of interest in politics in general or certain issues and are knowledgeable in new information technologies. If so, such communication could distort the member's perception on public opinion (Smith, Roberts, & Wielen, 2013).

2. Models of Presidential Leadership

An individual interested in leading the government should have expansive knowledge on how the government is run; from making decisions, solving problems and delegation of duties. In connection to that, there are three diverse concepts that elaborate what the competencies of a president should be. To answer this question, three distinct conceptions are presented by Paul Quirk: The Presidency of Strategic Competence, the Self-Reliant Presidency and the Minimalist Presidency. I will base my essay on strategic competence. In my opinion, the minimalist and self-reliant presidency concepts are impractical, although they might have been demonstrated by President Bush and Clinton (Oyaro).

The author has discussed "Self-Reliant Presidency," giving example of presidents such as Jimmy Carter, FDR, and Johnson. Quirk (2002) (Quirk, 2002) does not hesitate to state that Self-Reliant Presidency is physically impossible to implement (Quirk, 2002). No one has the ability to be in charge of even fifty percent of the issues that the presidency deals with. He further states that any key policy question produces prospects, advocacy and studies that would keep the policy maker seeking to master it occupied fully (What Must President's Know?). Presidents who can fit in this category include Johnson, Carter and Roosevelt. Examples of presidents that would be placed in this category include Roosevelt, Johnson, and Carter. Self-reliant presidents, however, have the disadvantages of getting too involved in the details that they miss the bigger picture (John).

The minimalist approach entrusts executive personnel with more authority to make decisions instead of handling it personally. Reagan is used as the main example as well as G.W. Bush to a lesser extent. Reagan's philosophy of "chair of the board" favored his lack of motivation to attend long briefings or do much reading. Although this approach can be attained, it presents various challenges. One, the president's "subordinates" and senior administration officials may be looking out for personal interests. If the president is not keen enough, he might fail to notice the difference (What Must President's Know?). In the minimalist approach, the president does not have to know some issues and expects them to be solved by subordinates. This is not to say that the president takes a passive role, it is just that other government levels such as Congress should deal with the details. Presidents who can be placed in this category include Reagan, Bush II and Eisenhower (John).

A combination of the other two approaches produces Strategic Competence. While the other two can be termed as black and white, this conception will be termed as "grey." Strategic competence seems more sensible since it considers the president's time, ability and effort to be "scarce resources." Therefore, decisions should be made about what the president should know though he cannot know everything. In some cases, delegation will deal with the situation well while others will require the president's personal attention (What Must President's Know?). In this category, the president's role as a leader has been outlined more clearly than in the other two. Those other categories seem more exhaustive. Arguably, presidents like Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Ford were in this category (John).

For simplicity, the first two categories can still be capable of categorizing presidential success correctly while the third could be discarded. Compared to other authors, Friedberg model does not look complex enough to be considered seriously because he suggests that all presidents with the exception of Clinton could have the third category removed and the other two hold up in correctly, categorizing presidential success. In comparison to other authors, the Friedberg model does not appear complex enough to be considered seriously because he suggests that with the exception of Clinton, all presidents have experienced more failure than success (John).