Note
Studied by 20 peopleNoteStudied by 10 peopleNoteStudied by 18 peopleNoteStudied by 29 peopleNoteStudied by 26 peopleNoteStudied by 7 people
Ch. 13 Presidency
Presidential Elections
The relationship between Americans and their president begins well before a presi-
dent takes the oath of office. In presidential election years, nonstop campaigning
provides ample opportunities for the public to learn about candidates and their
positions on issues, as we could see during the 2016 campaign, which offered
nearly thirty debates between candidates in the primaries alone, plus nearly non-
stop coverage of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. Campaigns are opportunities
for voters to familiarize themselves with the policy stances and personal traits of
candidates. Campaigns also present many avenues for participation by the people—
for example, by volunteering in or contributing to candidates’ campaigns or even
just by debating candidates’ views around the water cooler or on Facebook.
Although these opportunities for citizen engagement are especially abundant dur-
ing a presidential election year, similar chances to get involved arise well before,
because potential candidates typically position themselves years in advance of
Election Day to secure their party’s nomination and to win the general election.
428 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
Thinking Critically
Should We Abolish the Electoral College?
The Issue: In the world’s oldest democracy, the idea that
the president of the United States might not be the choice of the
majority of the voting population is a distinct reality. Such was
the case in the 2016 presidential election: The candidate with the
most popular votes, Democrat Hillary Clinton, lost the presidential
election to her opponent, Republican Donald J. Trump. According
to the Federal Election Commission’s official election results,
Clinton won the popular vote 65,853,516 to Trump’s 62,984,825.*
In every other election for federal office, the candidate with the
most popular votes wins that seat. But instead of the direct elec-
tion of the president, the Constitution requires that the president
be elected by the Electoral College. Essentially, the winner is de-
termined by the cumulative results of 51 separate elections, one
conducted in each state plus the District of Columbia, with the
number of electoral votes determined in proportion to the size of
the state’s congressional delegation. Is the Electoral College sys-
tem unfair? Should we abolish it?
Yes: The Electoral College is exclusive and undemocratic. The
Electoral College system demands that candidates focus nearly ex-
clusively on key swing states that will be pivotal to their election and
on populous states that carry the most electoral votes. The system
is undemocratic because of its reliance on plurality elections within
the states. In a plurality, the candidate with the most votes wins,
even if that candidate does not receive a majority of the votes. The
ultimate victory in both the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections
by the candidates whom the most people did not prefer (George
W. Bush and Donald Trump) highlights the undemocratic nature of
the Electoral College. The Electoral College should be abolished.
No: The constitutionally mandated Electoral College system pro-
vides a crucial check on what would otherwise be the unchecked
will of the people. In structuring the Electoral College as they did,
the Constitution’s framers devised a way of representing the
views of both the people who elect the electors and the states
because of the state-based nature of the elections. Other checks
on the will of the people include staggered senatorial elections (in
which one-third of that body is elected every two years) and ap-
pointed Supreme Court justices, and these are evidence of the
framers’ view that the will of the people needed to be tempered. If
the Electoral College were abolished, the most populous geo-
graphical regions would dominate in presidential elections. Urban
areas would have tremendous clout in presidential elections, and
less densely populated rural areas would be virtually ignored. The
current structure strengthens the power of the states and in this
way ensures that our federal system remains strong.
Other Approaches: Because of the difficulty of abolishing
the Electoral College, various schemes have been proposed that
would make it almost impossible for the loser of the popular vote
to win the presidency, including awarding a state’s electoral votes
proportionally instead of on a winner-take-all basis, dividing elec-
toral votes by congressional district (currently done in Maine and
Nebraska), and awarding extra electoral votes to the winner of
the popular vote. Legislation recently passed in Maryland, Hawaii,
Illinois, and New Jersey would commit those states’ electors to
vote for the winner of the popular vote if states representing a
270-vote majority in the Electoral College enact similar legislation.
What do you think?
1. Do you think that the Electoral College should be abol-
ished, should remain the same, or should be reformed?
Why? If your answer is “should be reformed,” what changes
would you implement?
2. If the Electoral College were abolished, what impact would
the change likely have on voters in your home state? Does
that scenario influence your view?
3. Americans revere the Constitution as a near-sacred docu-
ment. Typically, citizens are reluctant to advocate amend-
ing the “supreme law of the land.” What is your view
concerning amending the Constitution?
*https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf.
As discussed in Chapter 8, citizens in each state who vote in their party’s
primary election choose the delegates to the national conventions, where the par-
ties’ nominees are officially chosen (see “Thinking Critically”). After the nominees
have been decided, typically by late August, they and their vice presidential run-
ning mates begin their general election campaign. Usually, the parties’ choice of
Presidential Roles and Responsibilities 429
nominee is a foregone conclusion by the time of the convention. The votes tallied
on Election Day determine which presidential candidate’s slate of electors will
cast their ballots, in accordance with state law. There are 538 electors in the
Electoral College because the number of electors is based on the number of
members of Congress—435 in the House of Representatives, 100 in the Senate—
plus 3 electors who represent the people of the District of Columbia, though these
elected officials are not the actual electors (see “Thinking Critically”). A presi-
dential candidate today needs a simple majority of electoral votes (270) to win
the presidency. On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December,
the slate of electors chosen in each state meets in their respective state capitals
and casts their electoral votes. The results are then announced in a joint session
of Congress in early January. In most presidential elections, however, the winner
is known on election night because analysts tabulate the outcome in each state
and predict the electoral vote. The winner takes the oath of office as president in
inaugural ceremonies on January 20.
Presidential Roles and Responsibilities
Newly elected presidents quickly discover that they need to perform a variety of
functions each day. Many of these are closely related to the president’s constitu-
tionally ascribed duties,3
including the role of commander in chief of the U.S.
armed forces, and others relate to the president’s role as chief diplomat. Other
roles reflect the growth of the presidency in modern times,4
whether it was Donald
Trump’s desire to bring industrial jobs back to the United States, Barack Obama’s
desire to overhaul health care, George W. Bush’s priority of reforming schools, or
all presidents’ need to keep the economy sound and growing. Presidents also must
conduct the “politics” of the job: they must interact with Congress and serve as
the leader of their party.5
Chief of State
The president’s role as chief of state reflects the chief executive’s embodiment of
the values and ideals of the nation, both within the United States and abroad. The
function of chief of state is similar to the ceremonial role played by the constitu-
tional monarch in parliamentary systems such as Great Britain’s. In the United
States, the role of symbolic leader of the nation enhances the president’s image
and authority and promotes national unity. We may experience this sense that we
are one indivisible nation when, for example, the president, as chief of state, makes
a formal state visit to another nation, or hosts Olympic medalists at the White
House.
The President’s Role in Congressional Agenda Setting
Although the separation of powers precludes the president from actually creating
laws, presidents nonetheless have significant legislative power.6
Presidents can
influence Congress by lobbying its members to support or oppose pending legisla-
tion and by defining the congressional agenda in the annual presidential State of
the Union message, a constitutionally required address to Congress. Presidents
also “legislate” when they submit the budget for the entire federal government to
Congress annually, although Congress ultimately passes the spending plan.
430 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
Today, one of the most important legislative tools at a president’s disposal is
the authority either to sign legislation into law or to veto it,7
as described in
Chapter 2. Although a veto allows the president to check the power of Congress,
it also provides Congress with the opportunity to check presidential power by
overriding the veto with a two-thirds majority vote.8
In giving the president the
right to veto laws, the Constitution essentially integrates the executive into the
legislative process.9
There are several variations on the veto. During a regular legislative session, if
the president does not sign or veto a bill within 10 days after receiving it from
Congress, the bill becomes law even without the president’s consent. But if the
president receives a congressional bill to sign and Congress is scheduled to adjourn
within 10 days, the president can exercise a pocket veto, in which the bill is vetoed
if the president takes no action at all.
Figure 13.1 shows that the use of the veto varies widely from president to
president. Modern presidents are generally much more likely to veto legislation
than their predecessors were. A primary determinant of whether a president will
regularly exercise veto power is whether the president’s party has a majority in
Congress. For example, President Trump has not vetoed any measures passed by
the Republican-controlled Congress. When Democrats had control of Congress
during President Obama’s administration, he issued only two vetoes, neither of
which was controversial. But after Republicans took control of Congress in 2014,
Obama went on to veto 10 additional measures, including a controversial one, the
Keystone XL pipeline bill, that would have allowed construction of an oil pipeline
running from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would join an
existing pipe. Obama vetoed another measure that would have repealed his own
health care act.
An exception to this trend was the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. As
Figure 13.1 shows, during his 12-year term in the White House, Roosevelt issued
372 vetoes, or 12 percent of all presidential vetoes. Roosevelt chalked up this
exceptional record despite having strong Democratic majorities in Congress
throughout his tenure. But Roosevelt used the veto much differently than most
presidents do. Because he was such a strong president, he exercised his veto
power to prevent the passage of even small pieces of legislation with which he
disagreed. Most presidents save the veto for important legislative matters, because
they are unwilling to offend members of Congress over smaller laws that they do
not favor.
But presidents today use a different tactic—the signing statement—to influence
how policies are to be administered during their tenure in office. A presidential
signing statement is a written message that the president issues upon signing a bill
into law. A presidential signing statement may, for example, direct executive
departments in how they should implement a law, taking into account constitu-
tional or political considerations. Controversy arose during the administration of
George W. Bush over the perception that, by using the tool widely, he was modi-
fying the intent of the laws by asserting unconstitutional legislative authority.10
Nonetheless, the use of signing statements was continued by President Obama,
who actually increased his use of signing statements in the wake of the 2012
presidential election. Indeed, during almost every year of Obama’s presidency,
Congress included a provision in the nation’s Defense Authorization Act that
sought to ban the transfer of detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba—which at one
time held more than 800 individuals the United States identified as potential
terrorists—to the United States. President Obama had vowed to close the facility
early in his administration, but faced significant resistance in Congress and among
signing statement
A written message that the presi-
dent issues upon signing a bill into
law.
Presidential Roles and Responsibilities 431
0
Washington
Adams
Madison
Jeerson
Monroe
J. Q. Adams
Jackson
Van Buren
W. H. Harrison
Tyler
Polk
Taylor
Fillmore
Plerce
Buchanan
Lincoln
A. Johnson
Grant
Hayes
Garfield
Arthur
50
40
30
20
10
2
5
1
5 6
2
9
4
12
2 4
21
45
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5
15
4
1 1 1
Cleveland
B. Harrison
Cleveland
McKinley
Taft
Wilson
Harding
Coolldge
Hoover
F. D. Roosevelt
T. Roosevelt
Truman
Elsenhower
Kennedy
L. B. Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
G. H. W. Bush
Clinton
G. W. Bush
Obama
Trump
0
200
150
100
50
250
300
350
400
304
372
19
180
9 2 1 1 1 1 5 6 4 3 9 12
2 7 2 2 4 1
12
42
6
42
30 33
5
20 21
73
12 16
26
48
13
39
29 36
12 12
0
Regular vetoes Vetoes overridden
21 Regular vetoes 15 Vetoes overridden
Evaluating the Facts
FIGURE 13.1 ■ Presidential Vetoes, 1789–2018 What does this graph generally indicate about the use of the
presidential veto over time? What trend is evident in presidents’ use of the veto from the administration of Franklin
D. Roosevelt to the present? Why do you think a president is more likely to veto legislation when one party controls
Congress and the other controls the presidency?
432 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
the public, which led to the inclusion of the bans in the bills. Each year, Obama
signed the defense measure, but issued a signing statement objecting to Congress’s
attempts to constrict his efforts to close the facility, saying, “Any attempt to
deprive the executive branch of that tool undermines our Nation’s counterterror-
ism efforts and has the potential to harm our national security.”11
Manager of the Economy
Although the Constitution makes no mention of presidential responsibilities with
respect to the economy, we can see the enormous power presidents have in this
regard by examining priorities of the Trump administration. Consider, for example,
the far-reaching implications of President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs, or
import taxes, on several raw and manufactured goods, including solar panels,
washing machines, aluminum, and steel coming from China, in an effort to recover
American jobs that had been lost because lower-priced imports were available.
Reaction to the tariffs was mixed, with many Republicans and most economists
criticizing the move and charging that it would lead to higher prices and a poten-
tial trade war. Some Democrats were supportive of the tariffs, hoping they would
restore some jobs. But whatever the outcome, the strong influence of the president
on the nation’s economy is apparent.
This influence could also be seen in the 2018–2019 federal budget process,
during which President Trump and his administration lobbied for and won key
changes to the U.S. tax code. Supporters note that most Americans will pay less
in taxes for the five years following the budget cycle, but critics point out the
serious increase in the national debt and the negative consequences that could
have on the national economy (see Chapter 16 for further discussion of economic
policy). By submitting a budget to Congress President Trump, like all presidents
before him, affects where federal tax dollars are spent and thereby sets the eco-
nomic priorities of the legislative agenda. Presidents also help to establish the
regulatory and economic environment in which businesses must operate, and in
that way they can influence economic growth and employment levels.
Central in presidents’ oversight of economic performance is the appointment
of the Federal Reserve Board (“the Fed”) and its chair, who play a crucial role
in managing the economy. The position of Fed chair tends to be less partisan than
many other appointments, and a given chair often serves under presidents of both
political parties. In 2018, President Trump surprised many by choosing not to
renominate Janet Yellin, who President Obama had appointed as Fed chair, as
presidents often renominate chairs from previous administrations if the economy
is growing. But Trump chose Jerome Powell, a member of the Fed since Obama
nominated him in 2012, to be the new chair. Powell enjoys a reputation as a
bipartisan consensus builder, as he convinced some Republicans in Congress not
to follow through on promises to default on the federal debt if GOP policies were
not adopted, pointing out the deleterious impact such a move would have on the
economy.
The appointment of a Fed chair has a lot to do with consumer confidence, as
well as with support from economically influential individuals on Wall Street,
including investment bankers, stockbrokers, and mortgage lenders. The fact that
a Fed action (such as increasing the interest rate that banks charge one another
for loans, which affects other interest rates charged to private individuals and
businesses) can send the stock market plummeting sheds light on why presidential
appointments to the Fed are watched so closely.
>One way presidents try to affect
the nation’s economy is through
the appointment of the Fed chair,
who oversees the Federal Reserve
Board,—a body that plays a crucial
role in managing the economy. In
2017, President Trump replaced
Obama appointee Janet Yellin and
appointed Jerome Powell as chair
of the Federal Reserve. The move
surprised some because Yellin had
overseen a period of economic
growth and job creation. During
his confirmation, Powell pledged
to continue many of the same
monetary policies, including
incremental interest-rate increases
as the economy continues to
improve.
©Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Presidential Roles and Responsibilities 433
Chief Diplomat
Serving in the capacity of chief diplomat, the president (along with advisers)
shapes and administers the nation’s foreign policy. Supported by a wide array of
foreign policy resources, including the State Department, the National Security
Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the various branches of the U.S.
military, the president creates and administers foreign policy. In setting foreign
policy, the president can act more unilaterally than with most domestic policies.
Members of Congress, who, in reflection of their constituents’ main interests, tend
to be concerned primarily with domestic policy issues, are much less likely to
challenge presidents in the foreign policy arena.
As chief diplomat, the president, in conjunction with his or her staff, negotiates
treaties and other international agreements with foreign nations and represents the
United States at international summits. The president also has the authority to enter
into an executive agreement, a kind of international agreement. Executive agreements
are based on the constitutional authority vested in the president, and, unlike treaties,
they may not be binding on future presidents nor do they require Senate approval.
The Constitution also empowers the president to appoint ambassadors to other
nations. As high-ranking diplomats, ambassadors are the official representatives of
the United States in their host nation. Ambassadors’ duties vary widely, depending
on the locale of their appointment. Some ambassadors play an influential, highly
visible role in carrying out U.S. foreign policy, but others remain in the background.
The president, acting in the role of chief diplomat, is the leader of the diplo-
matic corps. In the capacity of chief diplomat, the president also hosts state din-
ners at the White House and formally receives the ambassadors of other nations.
As commander in chief, the president is the supreme military commander of
the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. Counseled by advis-
ers, the president decides when to send troops into battle (although only Congress
can formally declare war) and sets military strategy in times of both peace and war.12
Today, serving as commander in chief of the military is, perhaps, among the most
onerous responsibilities of the president. In earlier eras, the president’s actions as
commander in chief often would be accompa-
nied by a congressional declaration of war, so
that both branches bore the responsibility of
sending troops into harm’s way. Today, however,
the rapid-fire nature of many conflicts means
that presidents often make unilateral decisions
to send “boots on the ground.” And so, for
example, when faced with evidence in 2018 that
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used
chemical weapons in that country’s civil war
against civilians in the rebel-held town of Douma,
it was President Trump who unilaterally ordered
retaliatory air strikes targeting three suspected
chemical weapons development or storage sites
being used by the al-Assad government.
Party Leader
One of the most important domestic roles for
the president is political: the function of
party leader. Such a role is sometimes difficult,
executive agreement
An international agreement between
the United States and other nations,
not subject to Senate approval and
in effect only during the administra-
tion of the president who negotiates
the agreement.
>Serving as commander in chief is one of the most onerous responsibili-
ties, as modern presidents are forced to act unilaterally when quick mili-
tary action is needed. Both President Trump and President Obama used
airstrikes against Syrian targets as a flexible tactic in response to foreign
policy challenges there.
©Halil el-Abdullah/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
434 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
particularly given the fractured nature of both political parties. But President Trump
assumed the role of party leader and he has succeeded in attracting candidates who
embrace his agenda and message. While President Trump is popular in some areas
of the country, in other areas Republican members of the House and Senate face
constituencies who have low opinions of the president, and so sometimes attempt to
distance themselves from him. Many in the Republican party establishment were at
odds with Donald Trump during his campaign, leading to concern about his ability
to lead the party that he had vocally criticized, and whose members had often criti-
cized him. But Trump has seized control of the GOP, effectively silencing—at least
temporarily—many of his critics within the Republican party. As chief of one of the
two main parties, the president is a symbolic leader for the party members and asserts
influence in the party’s operations by selecting the national party chair and serving
as the party’s premier fund-raiser. The presidential function of party leader has
become even more significant in recent White House administrations, with presidents
working ever more aggressively to promote the reelection of candidates from their
party by ensuring that enough money is available for their campaigns.
The president also acts as party head in the day-to-day operations of the exec-
utive branch, because many of the staff appointments to the White House Office,
cabinet, subcabinet, ambassadorships, and judiciary typically come from party
ranks. Finally, at the end of a president’s term, the president likely campaigns on
behalf of the party’s new presidential nominee.
Chief Executive
As the nation’s leader in domestic and foreign policy initiatives, the president serves
as chief executive. In this capacity, the president appoints the secretaries (top admin-
istrators) of the cabinet—the 15 departments of the federal government—as well as
the heads of other federal government agencies charged with developing and imple-
menting the administration’s policy. As chief executive, the president also appoints
other staff members and numerous advisers, including staff in the Executive Office
of the President. In the capacity of chief executive, the president determines how the
bureaucracy will implement the laws Congress has passed and which policies—those
concerning education, crime, social welfare, and so on—will be emphasized.13
The President and the Executive Branch
As chief executive, the president is constitutionally charged with ensuring that the
“laws be faithfully executed.” Today, this responsibility means that the president
oversees a bureaucracy of more than four million government employees, including
the members of the military, while presiding over an astonishing annual federal
budget of nearly $4 trillion. In addition, as we now consider, the president is the
leader of the executive branch of government, which includes the vice president, the
cabinet, the offices within the White House, and the entire federal bureaucracy.
The Vice President’s Role
John Nance Garner, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vice president from 1933 to 1941,
vulgarly commented that “the vice presidency isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss.”14
This insider’s observation on the vice presidential office matches the perceptions
of many Americans fairly well. But although the media and the public tend to
ignore the vice presidency and to marginalize the responsibilities of the second-
in-command, vice presidents have an enormously important function. They are
The President and the Executive Branch 435
first in the line of succession to the presidency if the president should die or
become incapacitated. Only eight presidents have died while in office, and although
presidential succession may not be the foremost consideration in selecting a run-
ning mate for many presidential candidates, it can be an issue. Bill Clinton, in
describing his selection of Tennessee Senator Al Gore as his running mate,
explained that his choice of Gore in part reflected Clinton’s belief that Gore would
make a good president “if something happened to me.”15
THE VICE PRESIDENT’S JOB Many vice presidents serve a largely ceremonial func-
tion, performing such activities as attending state dinners, visiting foreign nations,
and attending the funerals of foreign dignitaries. But vice presidents may have more
substantive responsibilities, depending on their skills and the needs of the admin-
istration. Sometimes, for example, a vice president acts as legislative liaison with
Congress, particularly if the vice president has more experience in dealing with the
legislative branch than the president. For example, before being elected governor
of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence served a dozen years in Congress, includ-
ing a stint as chair of the House Republican Conference, where he forged deep
relationships with fellow Republicans, and these relationships have benefited the
Trump administration. In other instances, vice presidents’ policy expertise is a
crucial resource for the administration. In the case of Vice President Dick Cheney,
experience in foreign policy and national security determined the pivotal role he
played in developing the foreign policy of George W. Bush’s administration.
Although vice presidents are only “a heartbeat away” from the presidency, their
own election to the presidency (should they decide to run) is not ensured when
their term as second-in-command has ended. It is true that several vice presidents—
among them, George H. W. Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson—have won election to
the presidency in their own right; but many other former vice presidents have
failed.16 Notably, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, and Gerald Ford (the vice presidents
of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon, respectively) all went down to
defeat at the polls in their bids for the White House.
CHOOSING A VICE PRESIDENT In selecting a vice
presidential running mate, traditionally, presidential
candidates weigh several considerations. Would-be
presidents strive for a balanced ticket; that is, to
broaden their appeal to the electorate and increase
their chances of getting elected, they select a running
mate who brings diversity of ideology, geographic
region, age, gender, race, or ethnicity to the slate.
Such was the case in 2016, when Republican presi-
dential nominee Donald Trump chose Indiana Gov-
ernor Mike Pence as his running mate; many party
supporters were heartened with Trump’s choice of an
experienced, conservative politician who could bal-
ance Trump’s lack of political experience. Similarly,
as a candidate vying for the presidency against Sena-
tor John McCain of Arizona, an older and respected
member of the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama chose
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who was thought
to complement Obama in terms of age (Biden was
65 years old, compared with Obama’s 47); experience
(Biden had served in the Senate since 1972, Obama
>When presidential nominees select a running mate, they often
strive to increase their own chances of being elected to the presi-
dency and of being able to govern effectively after taking office.
In 2016, Donald Trump chose Indiana Governor Mike Pence, an
experienced, conservative politician as his potential vice president.
©Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
balanced ticket
The selection of a running mate
who brings diversity of ideology,
geographic region, age, gender,
race, or ethnicity to the slate.
436 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
since 2000); and expertise (Biden was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, Obama had faced media criticism about his lack of foreign policy experience).
The Cabinet
Since George Washington’s presidency, every president has depended on the
advice of a cabinet, the group of experts chosen by the president to serve as advis-
ers on running the country. These advisers serve as the heads of each of the
executive departments. Figure 13.2 shows the 15 departments of the cabinet and
cabinet
The group of experts chosen by
the president to serve as advisers
on running the country.
Alex Azar
Secretary of Health
and Human Services
Kirstjen Nielsen
Secretary of Homeland Security
Benjamin S. Carson Sr.
Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development
Robert Wilkie
Secretary of
Veterans Aairs
Ryan Zinke
Secretary of the Interior
Alexander Acosta
Secretary of Labor
Elisabeth Prince DeVos
Secretary of Education
James Richard Perry
Secretary of Energy
Elaine L. Chao
Secretary of Transportation
Steven T. Mnuchin
Secretary of the Treasury
Robert Lighthizer
U.S. Trade Representative
Sonny Perdue
Secretary of Agriculture
Wilbur L. Ross Jr.
Secretary of Commerce
James Mattis
Secretary of Defense
Matthew G. Whitaker
Acting Attorney General
Sonny Perd
Secretary of
ww
r
of Health
uman Service
www.hhs.g
ames Mattis
Secretary of De
www.defe
Wilkie
etary o f
erans Aairs
Steven T. Mnuchin
Secretary of the Treasury
Robert Lighthizer
U.S. TradeRepresentative
FIGURE 13.2 ■ The Departments of the President’s Cabinet The presidential cabinet consists of the heads of the
15 departments shown in the figure. Which department is concerned with finding alternatives to the use of fossil fuels?
Which one addresses the problems of the dedicated service men and women who served in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Which department arose as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist strikes?
Source (Line 1): United States Department of Justice; United States Department of Agriculture; United States Department of Commerce; United States Department of Defense;
United States Department of Education, Line 2: United States Department of Energy; United States Department of Health and Human Services; ©Win McNamee/Getty Images;
©Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images, Line 3: United States Department of the Interior; United States Department of Labor; United States Department of Transportation; United States
Department of Treasury; United States Trade Representative.
The President and the Executive Branch 437
their respective websites. Each cabinet member except the head of the Department
of Justice is called the secretary of that department. The head of the Department
of Justice is called the attorney general.
President George W. Bush created the newest department, the Department of
Homeland Security, in 2002. This department is charged with increasing the
nation’s preparedness, particularly with respect to catastrophic events such as ter-
rorist attacks and natural disasters. George Washington’s cabinet consisted of the
heads of only four departments—justice, state, treasury, and war. (The last is now
called the Department of Defense.) Subsequent presidents added other departments.
Each president may also designate cabinet rank to other advisers whose agen-
cies are not permanent cabinet departments. Typically, presidents have specified
that their national security adviser, director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency be included
in their administration’s cabinet. In addition to these advisers, President Trump
has included the Small Business Administrator in his cabinet.
Today, presidents and the public typically scrutinize presidential cabinet
appointments to determine whether, in the words of Bill Clinton, they “look like
America.” As the data in Table 13.1 confirm, this is a relatively new gauge, since
only three women and two members of ethnic minority groups had served in
presidential cabinets until the Carter administration. Although President Trump’s
cabinet is less diverse than those of recent presidents, before his tenure, presidential
PRESIDENT
NUMBER OF
WOMEN* CABINET
MEMBERS
NUMBER OF
MINORITY** CABINET
MEMBERS TENURE
Trump 6 4 2017–
Obama 14 15 2009–2017
G. W. Bush 7 10 2001–2009
Clinton 13 11 1993–2001
G. H. W. Bush 4 3 1989–1993
Reagan 4 2 1981–1989
Carter 4 1 1977–1981
Ford 1 1 1974–1977
Nixon 0 0 1969–1974
Johnson 0 1 1963–1969
Kennedy 0 0 1961–1963
Eisenhower 1 0 1953–1961
Truman 0 0 1945–1953
F. Roosevelt 1 0 1933–1945
TABLE 13.1 Women and Minorities Appointed
to Presidential Cabinets
*Includes cabinet and cabinet-level appointments.
**Includes African Americans, Latinos/as, and Asian Americans.
SOURCES: Brigid C. Harrison, Women in American Politics: An Introduction (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing, 2003); the Center for the American Woman and Politics, National Information Bank on Women
in Public Office, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
438 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
cabinets were becoming increasingly diverse,
with significant strides made during President
Bill Clinton’s administration.17 Clinton became
the first president to appoint a woman to any
of the “big four” posts when he named Janet
Reno attorney general and Madeleine Albright
secretary of state. George W. Bush named
Colin Powell the first black secretary of state,
and when Powell resigned, Bush replaced him
with Condoleezza Rice, an African American
woman who had served previously as national
security adviser.
The Obama administration continued the
trend of increasing diversity. During his two
terms, President Obama appointed 14 female
cabinet members, including several to “big
four” posts: Hillary Clinton served as secretary
of state during his first term, and Loretta
Lynch served as attorney general during his
second. Obama also appointed a record num-
ber of racial and ethnic minorities to cabinet
posts. President Trump’s cabinet has been less diverse than his immediate prede-
cessors’: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Benjamin S. Carson Sr.
is the only African American, and Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta is the
only Hispanic; Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao is Asian American,
and former Representative of the United States to the United Nations Nikki R.
Haley is Indian American. Chao and Haley are joined by three other women in
the Trump cabinet: Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Homeland
Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel.
The Executive Office of the President
Whereas the cabinet usually functions as an advisory board for the president, the
Executive Office of the President (EOP) typically is the launchpad for the imple-
mentation of policy. The offices, councils, and boards that compose the EOP help
the president to carry out the day-to-day responsibilities of the presidency and
similarly assist the first lady and the vice president in their official activities. The
EOP also coordinates policies among different agencies and departments.
Among the EOP offices, several are particularly important, including the White
House Office, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisers. These offices are crucial not only
because of the prominent issues with which they deal but also because of their
strong role in developing and implementing policy in these issue areas.18
THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE Playing a pivotal role in most presidential administra-
tions, White House Office (WHO) staff members develop policies favored by the
presidential administration and protect the president’s legal and political interests.
They research policy and keep the president informed about policy issues on the
horizon. WHO staffers also regularly interact with members of Congress, their
primary goal being to get presidential policy priorities enacted into law. They strive
to ensure that those policies, once passed into law, are administered in keeping
with the president’s expectations.
>The tenure of President Trump’s second White House Chief of Staff Gen.
John Kelly has been a controversial one. Many outsiders speculated that
Kelly would bring stability and moderation to the West Wing and were
surprised at some of his hard-line stances on policy issues. But over the
course of his tenure, it seems that Kelly’s influence has dwindled.
©Michael Candelori/Shutterstock
Executive Office of the
President (EOP)
The offices, counsels, and boards
that help the president to carry out
his day-to-day responsibilities.
White House Office (WHO)
The office that develops policies
and protects the president’s legal
and political interests.
The President and the Executive Branch 439
Because of the enormous influence of staff members in the White House
Office, presidents take pains to ensure their loyalty and trustworthiness, a task
that has proven difficult in President Trump’s White House Office, which has
faced criticism because of an unusually high level of turnover in key positions.
Among the top staff members of the White House Office is the chief of staff, who
serves as both an adviser to the president and the manager of the WHO. Other
staff members with clout include the press secretary, the president’s spokesperson
to the media, and the White House counsel, the president’s lawyer. The president’s
secretary and appointments secretary are also influential WHO employees; they
act as gatekeepers by controlling access to the president by other staffers and by
members of Congress and the cabinet.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL The president consults members of the National
Security Council (NSC) on domestic and foreign matters related to national secu-
rity. Since its creation in 1947 during the Truman administration,19 the NSC has
advised presidents on key national security and foreign policy decisions and
assisted in the implementation of those decisions by coordinating policy adminis-
tration among different agencies. For example, once the president has decided on
a specific policy, the NSC might coordinate its implementation among the Depart-
ment of State, the Central Intelligence Agency, various branches of the military,
and diplomatic officials.
The president officially chairs the National Security Council. Its other regular
members include the vice president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state,
the secretary of the treasury, and the assistant to the president for national secu-
rity affairs, often called the National Security Advisor, who is responsible for
administering the day-to-day operations of the NSC and its staff. Other administra-
tion officials serve the NSC in advisory capacities or are invited to meetings when
matters concerning their area of expertise are being decided.
Within the Trump administration, the position of National Security Advisor
has been both a powerful position and one fraught with controversy. President
Trump’s first National Security Advisor, Michael T. Flynn, resigned after revela-
tions that he had misled administration officials, including Vice President Mike
Pence, about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador to the United
States. Flynn was replaced with Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who had led troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq. It was hoped that McMaster would bring stability to the
administration’s foreign policy, but McMaster resigned after a year, never having
developed a strong bond with President Trump. In March 2018, McMaster was
replaced by John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, known
for taking hard-line stances in international disputes.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Once part of the Department of the
Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB—originally called the
Bureau of the Budget) has been a separate office within the EOP since 1939. Its
chief responsibility is to create the president’s annual budget, which the president
submits to Congress each January. The budget outlines all of the anticipated
revenue that the government will receive in the next year, usually from taxes and
fees paid by businesses and individuals. The budget also lists the anticipated expen-
ditures for the coming year, detailing how much money the various departments
and agencies in the federal government will have available to spend on salaries,
administrative costs, and programs. The OMB is among the president’s most
important agencies for policy making and policy implementation.
chief of staff
Among the most important staff
members of the White House
Office (WHO); serves as both an
adviser to the president and the
manager of the WHO.
press secretary
The president’s spokesperson to
the media.
White House counsel
The president’s lawyer.
National Security
Council (NSC)
Consisting of top foreign policy
advisers and relevant cabinet
officials, this is an arm of the
Executive Office of the President
that the president consults on
matters of foreign policy and
national security.
National Security Advisor
The assistant to the president for
national security affairs, adviser to
the president on national security
policy, and administrator over the
day-to-day operations of the
National Security Council.
Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)
The office that creates the
president’s annual budget.
440 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
The director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a presidential
appointee confirmed by the Senate, has a staff of about six hundred career civil
servants. In recent decades, the OMB director has figured prominently in presi-
dential administrations and typically has been designated a member of the cabinet.
The director’s job is complex. He or she interacts intensively with Congress, trying
to ensure that the budget that passes resembles the president’s proposed budget
as closely as possible. The director also lobbies members of Congress with the
goal of ensuring that the key provisions of the budget that are important to the
president remain intact in the congressionally approved version.
Once Congress approves the budget, the director of the OMB turns attention
to its implementation, since it is the job of the OMB staff to manage the budget’s
execution by federal departments and agencies—to ensure that monies are spent
on their designated purposes and that fraud and financial abuse do not occur.
This managerial responsibility of the OMB was the reasoning behind the change
in the office’s name (from the Bureau of the Budget) in 1970.
Presidential Succession
No examination of the executive branch would be complete without considering
the question, What happens if the president dies? Presidential succession is deter-
mined by the Presidential Succession Law of 1947. But sometimes incapacitation
other than death prevents presidents from fulfilling their duties. In such cases, the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, determines the course of action.
When the President Dies in Office
When the president dies, the course of action is clear in most cases: The vice
president assumes the presidency. Such was the situation when Harry S. Truman
became president upon Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
death from natural causes in 1945 and when
Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president
after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in
1963. Vice presidents sometimes fill the unex-
pired term of their president for reasons other
than the president’s death, as when Gerald
Ford acceded to the presidency upon the res-
ignation of Richard Nixon after the Watergate
scandal.
The Presidential Succession Law of 1947
determines presidential succession if the vice
president also dies or is unable to govern.
Table 13.2 shows that after the vice president,
the next in line for the presidency is the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, then
the president pro tem of the Senate, followed
by a specified order of the members of the
cabinet. Notice that as new cabinet depart-
ments have been established, their secretaries
have been added to the bottom of the line of
succession. As a precaution, at the State of the
Union address each year, one cabinet member
is chosen not to attend the president’s speech
>When a president dies in office, the line of presidential succession is
clear. Crowds watched the funeral procession for President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, who died in office in 1945 and was succeeded by his vice
president, Harry S. Truman (1945–1953).
©George Skadding/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
Sources of Presidential Power 441
before Congress but, rather, to stay behind at the White
House. This measure ensures that if a catastrophe should
occur in Congress during the address, someone in the
line of succession will be able to assume the duties of the
president.
When the President Cannot Serve:
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment
What happens when a president is alive but unable to
carry out the responsibilities of the office? Until the rati-
fication of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, the
course of action was not clear. Such was the case in 1881,
when an assassin shot President James Garfield, and
Garfield lived two and a half months before succumbing
to his injuries. In another such instance, President
Woodrow Wilson was so ill during his last months in
office that he was incapacitated. First Lady Edith Wilson
assumed some of his responsibilities and decision mak-
ing. Questions about presidential health also arose toward
the end of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure; and during
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration, the president
authorized Vice President Richard Nixon to determine
whether Eisenhower, who was battling a series of ill-
nesses, was competent to govern. President John F.
Kennedy, who suffered from a host of physical ailments,
including severe, chronic back pain and Addison’s dis-
ease, similarly empowered Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson: in an informal
agreement, the men arranged that if Kennedy was physically unable to communi-
cate with Johnson, Johnson was authorized to assume the presidency.
After Kennedy’s assassination, the ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment
(1967) finally put codified procedures in place for dealing with an incapacitated
president. According to the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, if a president believes he or
she is unable to carry out the duties of the office, the president must notify Congress,
and the vice president becomes the acting president until the president can resume
authority. The amendment would apply in the case when a president is anesthetized
for surgery, for example, or perhaps recuperating from a debilitating illness.
In other situations, a president might be incapable of carrying out the duties
of office and incapable of notifying Congress. In such a case, the Twenty-Fifth
Amendment requires that the vice president and a majority of the cabinet notify
Congress, and the vice president becomes the acting president. If a question arises
as to whether the president is fit to reassume the duties of office, a two-thirds
vote of Congress is required for the acting president to remain.
Sources of Presidential Power
The presidency that Donald Trump assumed on January 20, 2017, scarcely resem-
bled George Washington’s presidency in the 1790s. From the late 18th century to
today, the powers of the president have evolved, reflecting the expansion of the
federal government, changes in public attitudes about the proper role of govern-
ment, and the personalities and will of those who have served as president.
1. Vice president
2. Speaker of the House of Representatives
3. President pro tem of the Senate
4. Secretary of state
5. Secretary of the treasury
6. Secretary of defense
7. Attorney general
8. Secretary of the interior
9. Secretary of agriculture
10. Secretary of commerce
11. Secretary of labor
12. Secretary of health and human services
13. Secretary of housing and urban development
14. Secretary of transportation
15. Secretary of energy
16. Secretary of education
17. Secretary of veterans affairs
18. Secretary of homeland security
TABLE 13.2 The Line of Presidential
Succession
442 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
In describing the powers that would guide presidents for centuries to come,
the framers of the Constitution created a unique office. These visionary authors
had lived through a repressive era in which an authoritarian monarch had exer-
cised absolute power. They subsequently had witnessed the new American nation’s
struggles under the ineffectual Articles of Confederation, in which the federal
government had too little power and the states too much. Thus the framers sought
to establish an office that would balance the exercise of authority with the pres-
ervation of the rights and the will of the people.
Given their colonial experience, it was no surprise that the framers granted the
presidents both expressed powers and inherent powers in the Constitution. Congress
grants presidents additional powers, called statutory powers, through congressional
action. We consider these various powers in this section.
Additional presidential powers have emerged over time. These newer authorities
reflect both changes in the institution of the presidency and shifts in popular views
on the appropriate role of government and the president. These powers include
emergency powers granted in Supreme Court decisions and powers that, though
not formalized, are given to presidents by the public through election mandates,
presidential popularity, or unified public opinion on a particular issue or course
of action.
The Constitution: Expressed Powers
The primary source of presidential power comes from the Constitution in the form
of the expressed powers, which are those enumerated in the Constitution. Article II,
Sections 2 and 3, list the following powers of the president:
• Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces.
• Appoint heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, Supreme Court
justices, people to fill vacancies that occur during the recess of the Senate,
and other positions.
• Pardon crimes, except in cases of impeachment.
• Enter into treaties, with two-thirds consent of the Senate.
• Give the State of the Union address to Congress.
• Convene the Congress.
• Receive ambassadors of other nations.
• Commission all officers of the United States.
The expressed powers outlined in the Constitution provide a framework for presi-
dential responsibilities and an outline of presidential power. They also shape how
presidents themselves develop their authority.
The Constitution: Inherent Powers
One of the principal ways by which the Constitution provides for presidents them-
selves to assert additional powers, beyond those expressed in the Constitution, is
the take care clause, which states that “the executive Power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America” and that the president “shall take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed.” On the basis of that clause, presidents
throughout U.S. history have asserted various inherent powers, which are powers
that are not expressly granted by the Constitution but are inferred.
President Thomas Jefferson exercised inherent powers in his far-reaching
Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Jefferson authorized this $15 million purchase of
expressed powers
Presidential powers enumerated in
the Constitution.
take care clause
The constitutional basis for inherent
powers, which states that the presi-
dent “shall take Care that the Laws
be faithfully executed.”
inherent powers
Presidential powers that are
implied in the Constitution.
Sources of Presidential Power 443
800,000 square miles of land, even though the Constitution did not authorize any
such action on the part of a president. Interestingly, in the civic discourse over the
Constitution, Jefferson, an Anti-Federalist, had argued for states’ rights and against
a strong central government and a powerful presidency. Jefferson had believed that
the powers enumerated in the Constitution defined the powers of the government.
But Jefferson thought that the purchase of the Louisiana Territory was of crucial
strategic and economic importance. He believed that the deal was key to the United
States averting war with France and to securing the port of New Orleans, which was
essential for the new American republic’s fortunes in trade. Jefferson could not
wait for a constitutional amendment to authorize the transaction, and so he forged
ahead with the purchase. Congress and many Americans of the day agreed with
his actions, and so there were no negative consequences to them.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt also drew on the inherent powers when he
expanded the size of the federal government in the 1930s to administer his New
Deal programs, designed to relieve the economic and human distress of the Great
Depression. Beginning in 2002, President George W. Bush used the inherent pow-
ers when he suspended the civil liberties of foreign nationals being held in a
military prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as part of the
administration’s war on terror. The individuals at Guantánamo Bay have been
detained indefinitely for questioning about their possible terrorist activities. These
instances of presidents’ exercise of inherent powers generated varying degrees of
controversy among Americans of the times.
More recently, President Obama exercised his inherent powers by again expand-
ing the scope of the federal government through passage of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as Obamacare. This health care
reform act, which was approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress at President
Obama’s behest, expands Medicaid, subsidizes health insurance premiums for
middle-income families, offers incentives for employers to provide health care to
their employees, and mandates that uninsured individuals purchase government-
approved health insurance. The measure, which has been vehemently opposed by
many Republicans in Congress since its passage, marked the entrance of the
federal government into previously uncharted territory.
Statutory Powers
The Constitution’s expressed and inherent powers provided a foundation for presi-
dential power that has evolved over time. Those powers have been supplemented
by additional powers, including statutory powers, which are explicitly granted to
presidents by congressional action.
An example of such a grant of statutory powers is the 1996 Line Item Veto
Act, which gave the president the power to strike down specific line items on an
appropriations bill while allowing the rest of the bill to become law. In 1997 the
Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional on the grounds that
the congressional action violated the separation of powers.
Special Presidential Powers
Presidents also have special powers that have evolved from various sources, includ-
ing the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. These powers, which numer-
ous presidents have exercised, have come to be regarded as accepted powers and
privileges of the presidency. They include executive orders, emergency powers, and
executive privilege.
statutory powers
Powers explicitly granted to presi-
dents by congressional action.
444 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
WHAT’S NEXT?
> Will a parallel backlash against President Trump’s exercise of
authority occur, like the one seen in the post-Nixon era?
> What public policy issues will likely dominate in the months
and years to come? How will these issues influence the ways
presidential power is exercised?
> What conditions facilitate the creation of “imperial” presiden-
cies? Do these conditions exist now?
Evolution of the Modern Presidency
THEN NOW NEXT
Then (1970s) Now
The presidency had become an
increasingly powerful institution,
shaped by the predecessors of Richard
Nixon, who assumed office in 1969.
President Trump relies on
unprecedentedly bold tactics
to act as a unilateral actor.
The presidency supplanted Congress
as the epicenter of power in the fed-
eral government.
Presidential exercise of
authority in the foreign
policy realm serves to limit
Congress’s ability to rein in
presidential power.
Backlash against abuses of executive
power in the Nixon administration
paved the way for the election of
Jimmy Carter, a comparatively weak
president.
While Democrats decry
President Trump’s uses of
executive power, even mem-
bers of his own party some-
times object to his actions.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS The president
has the power to issue executive orders
that have the force of law. Executive
orders carry the same weight as con-
gressional statutes and have been used
in a variety of circumstances to guide
the executive branch’s administrative
functions.20 Executive orders have very
few limitations and stipulations, though
one limitation is that presidents cannot
use them to create new taxes or appro-
priate funds, because the Constitution
reserves those powers for Congress. In
general, executive orders:
• Direct the enforcement of con-
gressional statutes or Supreme
Court rulings.
• Enforce specific provisions of
the Constitution.
• Guide the administration of trea-
ties with foreign governments.
• Create or change the regulatory
guidelines or practices of an
executive department or agency.
Executive orders can be an impor-
tant strategic tool, because they convey
the president’s priorities to the bureau-
cracy that implements the laws. For
example, in 1948 President Harry
Truman signed Executive Order 9981,
which states, “It is hereby declared to
be the policy of the President that
there shall be equality of treatment and
opportunity for all persons in the
armed services without regard to race,
color, religion, or national origin.”21
This executive order effectively banned
segregation in the U.S. military. Why would Truman issue an executive order
instead of working for congressional passage of a statute that would desegregate
the military? Many analysts think that Truman, who ardently believed that the
military should be desegregated, not only doubted that Congress would pass
such a measure but also faced pressure from early civil rights activists who had
pledged an African American boycott of military service if the military was not
desegregated.
EMERGENCY POWERS Broad powers that a president exercises during times of
national crisis have been invoked by presidents since Abraham Lincoln’s claim
to emergency powers during the Civil War. Lincoln used emergency powers during
the war to suspend the civil liberties of alleged agitators, to draft state militia
units into national service, and to federalize the governance of southern states
after the war.
executive order
The power of the president to issue
orders that carry the force of law.
emergency powers
Broad powers exercised by the
president during times of national
crisis.
The People as a Source of Presidential Power 445
In 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of presidential
emergency powers in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.22 In this case, the
U.S. government charged the Curtiss-Wright Corporation with conspiring to sell
15 machine guns to Bolivia, in violation of a joint resolution of Congress and a
presidential proclamation. Without congressional approval, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt had ordered an embargo on the machine-gun shipment. The Court sup-
ported Roosevelt’s order, ruling that the president’s powers, particularly in foreign
affairs, are not limited to those powers expressly stated in the Constitution. The
justices also stated that the federal government is the primary actor in foreign
affairs and that the president in particular has inherent powers related to the
constitutionally derived duties in foreign relations.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE Presidents also can exercise executive privilege, the
authority of the president and other executive officials to refuse to disclose infor-
mation concerning confidential conversations or national security to Congress or
the courts. In invoking executive privilege, presidents draw on the idea that the
Constitution’s framework of separation of powers justifies the withholding of cer-
tain information from Congress or the judiciary,23 a claim initially asserted when
George Washington refused to grant Congress access to all documents pertaining
to treaty negotiations. Typically, presidents claim executive privilege so that they
can get advice from aides without fear that such conversations might be made
public or scrutinized by members of Congress or the judiciary. Presidents also
have invoked executive privilege when negotiating foreign policies with other heads
of state, to shield these leaders from having sensitive negotiations examined by
the other branches of the federal government.
On occasion, the judicial branch of the federal government has successfully
challenged executive privilege. For example, when President Richard Nixon refused
to turn over tapes of Oval Office conversations to a special prosecutor investigat-
ing the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court intervened. In United States
v. Richard M. Nixon, the Court asserted that although executive privilege does exist,
it was not applicable regarding the tapes because President Nixon’s claim of exec-
utive privilege concerning the tapes was too broad.24
In general, the courts have allowed executive privilege in cases where a clear
issue of separation of powers exists—as with respect to international negotiations
and conversations regarding matters of policy or national security. The courts have
tended to limit the use of executive privilege when presidents have exercised it in
an effort to prevent the revelation of misdeeds by members of the executive
branch. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when Bill Clinton evoked executive
privilege to prevent White House aides from testifying before special prosecutor
Kenneth Starr, the courts ruled that executive privilege did not apply, and his
aides were compelled to testify. (Clinton was accused of having extramarital rela-
tions with Lewinsky, a White House intern.) President Trump also has threatened
to evoke executive privilege to keep current and former aides from answering
questions as part of an inquiry being conducted by special council Robert Mueller
concerning meddling by Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
The People as a Source of Presidential Power
One of the most important sources of presidential power today comes from the
people. Although one president generally will have the same formal powers as the
next, presidents’ ability to wield their power, to control the political agenda, and
executive privilege
The right of the chief executive and
members of the administration to
withhold information from Congress
or the courts, or the right to refuse
to appear before legislative or
judicial bodies.
446 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
to get things done typically is a function of political skill, charisma, and what
political scientist Richard Neustadt has called “the power to persuade.”25
The President and the Bully Pulpit
Modern presidents work to persuade the public on a virtually continuous basis.
They know that if they win popular support for their views and political agenda,
they will have an easier time getting their policy priorities through Congress. In
their efforts to persuade the people, they exploit the power of their office, using the
presidency as a forum from which to speak out on any matter—and to have their
views listened to. This ready access to the public ear and broad power of the
president to communicate led President Theodore Roosevelt to exclaim, “I have
got such a bully pulpit!”26
In using their bully pulpit, presidents seek to communicate that their stances
on important issues are the right choices and that their actions, particularly con-
troversial decisions, should be supported. Presidents also strive to persuade the
public that they are doing a good job on key policy fronts such as economic and
foreign policy. Sometimes presidents seek to mobilize the public to take specific
actions or to adopt certain beliefs. For example, although President Trump has
faced stern criticism (from both his supporters and detractors), his mastery of
Twitter, the modern bully pulpit, illustrates his ability not only to inform the
public, but also to single-handedly determine the national agenda, often steering
media coverage toward one issue or another simply through a 140-character mes-
sage (which often ends in exclamation points)!!!
The reason why presidents work so tirelessly to win public support for their
agenda is that they understand that getting Congress to act on policy priorities,
to approve budgets, and to pass favored legislation depends heavily on the per-
ception that the public supports presidential initiatives. Indeed, political scientist
Richard Neustadt argues that the modern institution of the presidency is weak
and that presidents in fact must rely on public and congressional support in
order to enact their agendas.27 Getting Congress to do what the president wants
is more difficult when a president faces divided government, the situation in
which the president belongs to one political party and Congress is controlled
by a majority of members of the other party, or when the president must deal
with a truncated government, in which the president and one house of Congress
are controlled by one party, but the other house of Congress is controlled by
the other.
But beyond partisan differences, presidents’ ability to get things done in Con-
gress also is a function of their popularity with the people. A popular president
can use that clout to persuade members of Congress that favored positions are
the right ones; an unpopular president, or one distracted by issues not related to
policy, will face greater obstacles in getting Congress’s cooperation to enact the
preferred legislative agenda.
The President and Public Approval
When presidents are sworn in to office, they are typically met with a time of hope
and optimism on the part of the public who elected them. The advantage of this
honeymoon period, a time early in a new president’s administration characterized
by optimistic approval by the public, varies in strength from president to president
(see “Analyzing the Sources”). But during this time a president’s approval rating,
honeymoon period
A time early in a new president’s
administration characterized by
optimistic approval by the public.
approval ratings
The percentage of survey respon-
dents who say that they “approve”
or “strongly approve” of the way
the president is doing his job.
The People as a Source of Presidential Power 447
Analyzing the Sources
PRESIDENTIAL JOB APPROVAL
Measuring presidential job approval is relatively simple: pollsters
ask survey respondents whether they approve or disapprove of
the job the president is doing. But these ratings are a powerful
indicator of how the public views the president and how much
they support the president’s agenda. Presidential approval ratings
are also an indicator of power in and of themselves—that is,
Congress will be reluctant to defy an extremely popular president,
while they may perceive little harm in resisting an unpopular
president’s priorities or agenda.
Practice Analytical Thinking
1. Which presidents enjoyed the highest approval
ratings? When did these high ratings occur?
What prompted the American people to be so
supportive of these presidents in those times?
2. In general, in looking at the approval trend of
modern presidents, how do two-term presidents
differ in their overall approval trend from one-
term presidents?
3. How does President Trump’s approval rating
compare with President Obama’s? With
President George W. Bush’s?
Year
1968 1972
0
100%
80
60
40
20
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2018
Nixon Ford Carter Reagan G. H. W. Bush Clinton G. W. Bush Obama Trump
the percentage of survey respondents who say they “approve” or “strongly approve”
of the way the president is doing the job, is above 55 percent.
While some presidents, on average, are more popular than others, the approval
ratings for many presidents varies a great deal during their terms in office. Take,
for example, President George W. Bush: after the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and President Bush’s rapid and dignified response to them, Bush enjoyed
record high approval ratings. Immediately after September 11, President Bush’s
approval ratings hovered in the high 80s, occasionally reaching 90 percent, mean-
ing that 90 percent of those surveyed indicated that they approved of the way the
president was handling his job. (In contrast, the average presidential approval
rating since the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration was 56 percent.) During
SOURCE: Gallup
448 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
this time, Bush had enormous legislative successes. These included the passage of
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which gave law enforcement officers greater
authority in handling suspected terrorist acts, and the congressional declaration
of a “war on terror.” When Bush’s popularity subsequently waned because of the
people’s dissatisfaction with the rate of progress in the war in Iraq, the high
number of casualties in the war, and continued weakness in the American econ-
omy, so, too, did support decrease for the continuation of the war, the president’s
economic policies, and a proposed extension of the USA PATRIOT Act.
While President Obama’s approval ratings did not show the same enormous
variations, we can see that he enjoyed a strong and sustained honeymoon period,
followed by a gradual decline in approval, with an uptick during his reelection
campaign in 2012.
In general, presidential approval ratings reveal that some presidents are simply
more popular than others. For example, Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton
tended to enjoy high approval ratings, with President Clinton’s second-term ratings
running particularly high, especially in light of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and
the subsequent impeachment proceedings against him. When the United States
engages in a short-term military action or is the subject of an attack by terrorists,
we see similar peaks in approval ratings, sometimes referred to as the rally
’round the flag effect. A president rarely sustains high public approval continuously.
Once achieved, however, high ratings help the chief executive succeed by demon-
strating the people’s support of the presidential agenda.28
Scratching beneath the surface, however, it is apparent that while high approval
ratings can bolster presidential power, lower approval ratings can sometimes signal
something other than universally low regard. Take, for example, President Trump’s
approval rating. During the first year of his presidency, Trump earned a national
approval rating of 38 percent. But as shown in Figure 13.3, that rating varied
greatly from state to state. For example, only 26 percent of Vermonters approved
of the president’s job performance, but 61 percent of West Virginians did. All in
all, President Trump received approval ratings above 50 percent in 12 states, while
he received ratings below 40 percent in 18 states. These figures demonstrate the
polarized nature of opinion of President Trump but also are demonstrative of his
efforts to build and maintain support in certain areas of the country, particularly
areas where he received strong support for his 2016 presidential bid.
Technology and the Media as
Tools of Presidential Influence
Just as President Trump has transformed the presidency by using social media to
convey his priorities and views to the American people, so too have his predeces-
sors embraced technological innovation as a means of wielding influence. In the
1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the relationship between the president and
his constituents by using radio to communicate directly with the American people.
President Kennedy would replicate this transformation using the medium of televi-
sion in the 1960s (see Chapter 11 for further discussion of the president’s use of
technology).
For every president, technology and the media can be used as a tool of influ-
ence as the expertise of the White House communications office can “spin” news
in a favorable light for the administration. In particular, the White House can
manage direct communication using new technologies by releasing videos on the
president’s Facebook page or YouTube channel, or by holding “office hours” on
rally ’round the flag effect
The peaks in presidential approval
ratings during short-term military
action.
The Evolution of Presidential Power 449
Twitter. Relying on traditional media, the communication director forges relation-
ships with the most prominent media outlets by providing access, exclusive inter-
views, and scoops on breaking stories to reporters considered friendly to the
administration.
Although the nature of presidential press conferences and other media forums
has evolved over time, the mass media have served as a key avenue by which
modern presidents have communicated directly to the population at large. Because
the nature of the president’s relationship with his constituency is constantly evolv-
ing, so, too, is presidential power.
The Evolution of Presidential Power
Although the constitutional powers of the presidency have changed little over time,
the power of the presidency has evolved a great deal.29 This development stems
in part from some presidents’ skillful use of powers not granted by the Constitution,
such as the powers to persuade and to assert more authority. But the political
environment within which presidents have governed has also contributed to the
evolution of presidential power.30
The history of the early republic saw an incremental expansion of the power
of the presidency, whereas the Great Depression of the 1930s and the election of
DE
MD
MA
RI
CT
NJ
NH
VT
HI
AK
OK
SD
ND
ME
WV
NC TN
SC
ALMS
AR
LA
MO
IA
MN
WI
GA
TX
CO
NM
UT
AZ
NV
ID
WY
OR
WA
CA
KS
IL
NY
FL
NE
MT
KY
PA
MI
VA
OH
IN
Below 40%
40% to 49%
50% or higher
FIGURE 13.3 ■ Approval of President Donald Trump Varies from State to State Geographically,
where is President Trump the most popular? The least popular? Assess President Trump’s popularity in the
states with the largest populations.
SOURCE: Gallup
Evaluating the Facts
450 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 spawned an enormous growth in presidential
authority.31 As successor presidents inherited the large bureaucracy that Roosevelt
built, presidential powers have expanded further—gradually creating what historian
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has called the imperial presidency, a term used to describe
some modern presidencies because of the enormous powers the office has gained
through assertion, the size of the bureaucracy, and the presence of staff loyal to
an individual president.
Early Presidents and the Scope of Presidential Power
Thomas Jefferson’s election to the presidency in 1801 marked one of the earliest
expansions of presidential power. Jefferson broadened the powers of the office
despite his Anti-Federalist reluctance to delegate too much power to the national
government. Jefferson increased presidential power in two significant ways. First,
as we have seen, Jefferson established the principle of inherent powers of the
presidency by undertaking the Louisiana Purchase. Second, Jefferson’s tenure in
office witnessed the first time that a president had to act as party leader. Jefferson
had no choice but to assume this role: If he had not, he would not have been
elected president, given the dominance of the Federalist Party during this era (see
Chapter 8).
Twenty-five years later, Andrew Jackson would also adopt the role of president-
as-party-leader, but he would add a new twist. Jackson’s emphasis on populism, a
political philosophy that emphasizes the needs of the common person, spawned
a new source of presidential power, because Jackson was the first president to
derive real and significant power from the people. Whereas earlier politics had
mostly emphasized the needs of the elite, Jackson’s populism mobilized the masses
of common people who traditionally had not been civically engaged. This popu-
lism augmented the power of the presidency by increasing the popularity of the
president and investing the president with power that came from the people’s
goodwill.
In the 20th century, the nature and scope of presidential power changed as a
consequence of the prevailing political environment. One of the most extraordi-
nary shifts in the nature of the presidency occurred during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
administration, which lasted from 1932 until his death in 1945. (Roosevelt was
elected to an unprecedented four terms; the Twenty-Second Amendment to the
Constitution, which allows only two elected presidential terms, was ratified six
years after his death.)
Having come to power during the Great Depression, Roosevelt engineered a
significant change in the function of the federal government. He called for a New
Deal for the American people, a series of social welfare programs that would
provide employment for many of the nation’s unemployed workers. Roosevelt’s
New Deal was based on the ideas of economist John Maynard Keynes, who argued
for temporary deficit spending by the government (that is, going into debt) to spur
the economy during economic downturns.
Roosevelt’s primary weapon in his New Deal arsenal was the Works Progress
Administration (WPA), a federal government program that employed 8.5 million
people at a cost of more than $11 million between 1935 and 1943. The idea was
that government-funded employment would create economic growth in the private
sector because those employed by the government would have the money to buy
goods and services, thus creating spiraling demand. The rising demand for goods
and services would mean that the private sector could then employ more people,
and the cycle of recovery and growth would continue. For example, if during the
imperial presidency
A term coined by Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. to describe the modern execu-
tive branch and the enormous pow-
ers the office has gained through
assertion, the size of the bureau-
cracy, and the presence of staff
loyal to an individual president.
Works Progress
Administration (WPA)
A New Deal program that employed
8.5 million people at a cost of more
than $11 million between 1935 and
1943.
1930s the government employed your great-great-grandfather to work
on a road-building project in his town, he might have put his pay-
check toward buying more bread and other baked goods than he
previously could have afforded. If enough people in town could have
similarly patronized the bakery, then the baker might have had to
hire an assistant to keep up with demand, and consequently the
assistant would have had money to spend on, say, new shoes for
his children. In that way, the increased demand for products and
services would continue, creating additional economic growth.
Roosevelt’s New Deal was important to the presidency for
two reasons. First, it dramatically changed people’s views of the
role of the federal government. Many people now tend to think of
the federal government as the provider of a “safety net” that protects
the most vulnerable citizens—a safeguard that did not exist before the
New Deal, when those needing assistance had to rely on the help of
family, friends, churches, and private charities. Second, this popular per-
ception and the programs that emerged—the WPA, unemployment insur-
ance, Social Security—meant that the federal government would have to grow
larger in order to administer these programs. As a result, the president’s role as chief
executive of a large federal bureaucracy would become much more important to
modern presidents than it had been to those who served before Roosevelt.32
The Watershed 1970s: The Pentagon Papers,
Watergate, and the “Imperial Presidency”
Americans’ penchant for strong presidents modeled after Roosevelt diminished
drastically in the 1970s. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a Defense Department employee,
leaked a classified, top-secret 7,000-page history of the nation’s involvement in
and thinking on Vietnam dating from the Truman administration in 1945 to the
Nixon administration then in the White House. Called the Pentagon Papers, the
work first appeared as a series of articles in The New York Times. When the Nixon
administration in 1971 successfully petitioned the Department of Justice to pre-
vent the publication of the remainder of the articles, the Washington Post assumed
publication of them. When the Department of Justice sued the Post, the Boston
Globe resumed their publication. Two weeks later, in an expedited appeals process,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in The New York Times Co. v. The United States that
the government “carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition
of such a restraint” and that the government had failed to meet that burden, thus
allowing the continued publication of the papers.33
The Pentagon Papers tainted the public’s view of the presidency. The published
work revealed miscalculations by policymakers in presidential administrations
from Truman’s to Nixon’s, as well as arrogance and deception on the part of
policymakers, cabinet members, and presidents. Specifically, the Pentagon Papers
revealed that the federal government had repeatedly lied about or misrepresented
the fact of increasing U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. In particular,
the analysis in the Pentagon Papers indicated not only that U.S. marines had
conducted offensive military maneuvers well before the public was informed but
also that the U.S. military had engaged in other actions, including air strikes over
Laos and military raids throughout the North Vietnamese coastal regions. The
Nixon administration’s legal wrangling to prevent release of the Pentagon Papers
cast a dark cloud over the public’s perception of the presidency.
The Evolution of Presidential Power 451
>William Frazee, the chief of the
presses for the Washington Post,
makes the victory sign after
learning of the Supreme Court’s
decision allowing newspapers to
publish the Pentagon Papers.
Applause broke out in the press
room as the first print run began
rolling.
©Bettmann/Getty Images
452 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
Cynicism about the presidency continued to grow in light of the Watergate
scandal that took place a year later. In 1972, men affiliated with President Nixon’s
reelection campaign broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Com-
mittee (located in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.) to retrieve wiretaps
that they had previously installed to monitor their opponents. Washington Post
reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, in a groundbreaking series of stories,
traced the burglaries and the subsequent cover-up to high-level officials in the
Nixon administration. This crime and the Nixon administration’s attempts at
cover-ups became known as the Watergate scandal. A Senate investigation revealed
that President Nixon had secretly taped conversations in the Oval Office that
would shed light on “what the president knew [about the break-in] and when he
knew it.”34 Nixon claimed executive privilege and refused to turn over the tapes
to a special prosecutor who had been appointed to investigate the scandal. When
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Richard Nixon that Nixon must
provide the tapes to the special prosecutor, one key tape was found to have a gap
of almost 20 minutes where someone, reportedly his secretary, Rosemary Woods,
had erased part of the recording.
Meanwhile, all the Watergate burglars had pleaded guilty and been sentenced,
and only one refused to name the superiors who had orchestrated the break-in.
But the testimony of burglar James W. McCord Jr. linked the crime to the Com-
mittee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP), Nixon’s campaign organization, and
to high-ranking Nixon White House officials. The disclosure prompted John Dean,
Nixon’s White House counsel, to remark: “We have a cancer within, close to the
presidency, that is growing.”35 With indictments handed down for many of Nixon’s
top aides, and with a Senate investigation and a special prosecutor’s investigation
in progress, the House Judiciary Committee took up the matter of impeachment.
The committee handed down three articles of impeachment against Nixon—one
for obstruction of justice, a second for abuse of power, and a third for contempt
of Congress. When a newly released tape documented that Nixon had planned to
block the investigations by having the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Central Intelligence Agency falsely claim that matters of national security were
involved, the tape was referred to as a “smoking gun.”36 Nixon lost the support
of his few loyalists in Congress and, on August 8, 1974, announced that he would
resign from office the following day.
Watergate might seem like a relatively insignificant event in the history of the
American presidency, but the impact of the Watergate scandal on the presidency
has been enormous. Watergate badly wounded the trust that many Americans held
for their president and for their government. Combined with the unpopularity of
the Vietnam War and the release of the Pentagon Papers, it created a deep cyni-
cism that pervades many Americans’ perception of their government even today—
a pessimistic attitude that has passed from generation to generation.
Watergate also dramatically demonstrated how enormously the presidency had
changed. Modern presidents had supplanted Congress as the center of federal
power and in so doing had become too powerful. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
and other presidential scholars have decried the problem of the growth of the
executive branch and, in particular, the imperial “courts”—the rising number of
Executive Office of the President staff members, many of whom are not subject
to Senate confirmation and share a deep loyalty to the person who is president
rather than to the institution of the presidency. In juxtaposition with an attitude
like that expressed by Richard Nixon in his comment that “when the president
does it, that means it is not illegal,”37 the imperial presidency left much room for
abuse.
Watergate
During the Nixon administration, a
scandal involving burglaries and
the subsequent cover-up by high-
level administration officials.
The Evolution of Presidential Power 453
The Post-Watergate Presidency
With the election of Jimmy Carter to the White
House in 1976, many observers believed that the
era of the imperial presidency had passed. Carter,
the mild-mannered governor of Georgia and thus
a Washington outsider, seemed to be the antidote
the nation needed after the display of power-run-
amok during Nixon’s tenure. But given the sig-
nificant challenges Carter faced during his term,
many people believed that he did not exercise
enough authority—that he acted weakly when
faced with various crises. Ronald Reagan’s
election in 1980 in some ways represented a
return to a more powerful, “imperial” presidency.
Reagan, a former actor, was Hollywood swagger
personified, speaking tough talk that many
Americans found appealing. His administration
was not unlike an imperial court, featuring a
group of advisers with deep loyalties to Reagan.
Although the era of unchecked presidential
power was gone for good, many would argue that
the George W. Bush administration was best at
re-creating a form of an imperial presidency.
Bush was able to exercise strong authority because of the fear created both among
the citizenry and in Congress after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. And
given President Bush’s activist foreign policy, he exercised great authority in that
realm, with Congress having little ability to check him. Ironically, many critics of
the Bush administration would assert that he was assisted in creating a modern
imperial presidency by many of the same staff members who were part of the
Nixon administration. But administration supporters would note that a strong
presidency was necessary at this critical juncture in the nation’s history.
Many Democrats were frustrated by President Obama’s comparative lack of
assertiveness when exercising presidential power in the early years of his first term.
Many analysts faulted his conciliatory, consensus-building nature as an impedi-
ment to exercising strong authority. These abilities, however, enabled the president
to get the hallmark achievement of his administration passed: the Affordable Care
Act of 2010. After the congressional elections later that year, which saw a Repub-
lican majority elected in the House, many viewed Obama’s powers as dissipating.
In particular, the Republican majority in the Senate served as a heavy check on
the latter portion of his first term. After the government shutdown in 2013, Presi-
dent Obama seemed more willing to exert strong authority in exercising presidential
duties, oftentimes while circumventing Congress. But in 2014, Republicans also won
control of the U.S. Senate, and Obama faced even more roadblocks to his policy
proposals and initiatives. The check provided by Republicans in the Congress
thwarted any prospect of the Obama administration becoming an imperial one.
Impeachment: A Check on Abuses of Presidential Power
Although presidential powers are flexible and can be shaped by the individuals
holding the office, these powers do not go unchecked. One crucial check on
presidential power is impeachment, the power of the House of Representatives to
>On the basis of an investigation by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the
House impeached President Bill Clinton in 1998 for committing perjury by
lying to a grand jury about his relationship with White House intern Monica
Lewinsky and for obstructing justice. The Senate voted to acquit Clinton on
those perjury charges.
©APTN/AP Images
454 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
formally accuse the president (and other high-ranking officials, including the vice
president and federal judges) of crimes. The Constitution specifically refers to
charges of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” an appro-
priately vague description of the potential offenses a president could commit. An
impeachment can be thought of as an indictment: If a majority of the members
of the House of Representatives vote to impeach the president, they forward the
charges against the president, called the articles of impeachment, to the Senate.
The Senate then tries the president and, in the event of conviction for the offenses,
determines the penalty. In convicting a president, the Senate has the authority to
punish the president by removing him from office.
Although the Senate can force a president to step down, it has never done so
in practice, and only two presidents have been impeached by the House of Rep-
resentatives. The first was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln as
president in 1865 upon the latter’s assassination. When he assumed the presi-
dency, Johnson faced not only a divided nation but also a government in turmoil.
The 11 articles of impeachment against him had to do primarily with his removal
of the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, who was working with Johnson’s congres-
sional opponents to undermine Johnson’s reconstruction policies in the South.
The so-called Radical Republicans in the House believed that Johnson’s policies
were too moderate, and they sought to treat the Confederate states as conquered
territories and to confiscate the land of slaveholders. Those same House members
wanted to protect their ally Stanton and prevent him from being removed from
office. The Senate ultimately recognized the politically motivated nature of the
articles of impeachment against Johnson and acquitted him on all counts.
The most recent occurrence of the impeachment of a president was in 1998,
when the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against
President Bill Clinton. On the basis of an investigation by a special prosecutor,
the House impeached Clinton for lying to a grand jury about his relationship with
White House intern Monica Lewinsky and for obstructing justice. The Senate
acquitted Clinton on both counts.
During the Watergate scandal that rocked Richard Nixon’s presidency, the
House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against the presi-
dent and sent them to the full House for a vote. Republican members of Congress
convinced Nixon that the House would vote to impeach him and that the Senate
would convict him and remove him from office. Faced with the inevitable, Nixon
became the first president to resign from office before the House could vote to
impeach him.
Women and the Presidency
Many believed that the 2016 election would result in a historic first: the election
of Hillary Clinton as the first woman president of the United States. Clinton’s
candidacy was historic, but her failure to win represents a stark political reality
concerning the difficulty of any woman to win the most powerful position in the
world. Of the three branches of government, the executive branch has been the
most challenging for women to enter as formal participants. Historically, part of
that struggle has come because sizeble portions of Americans were unwilling to
vote for a qualified woman for president, as shown in Figure 13.4. For example,
in 1937, only 33 percent of Americans said they would cast their presidential ballot
for a qualified woman, but that figure has risen steadily. By 1999, 92 percent of
respondents said they would vote for a female presidential candidate. In 2005,
impeachment
The power of the House of
Representatives to formally accuse
the president (and other high-ranking
officials, including the vice president
and federal judges) of crimes.
articles of impeachment
Charges against the president
during an impeachment.
Women and the Presidency 455
that number declined to 89 percent. One explanation for this drop could be that
at the time of the poll, then-Senator Hillary Clinton was frequently mentioned as
a likely 2008 presidential candidate and respondents unwilling to support her
candidacy said they were unwilling to vote for a woman for president. By 2013,
though, the number had risen again, and 95 percent of Americans said they were
willing to vote for a woman for president. Again, in 2015, with the prospect of a
Hillary Clinton candidacy emerging, there was a slight down-tick in the percent-
age, again presumably because some respondents viewed Clinton as that likely
woman candidate. Nonetheless, while the trend is a positive one, it remains dis-
concerting that a statistically significant proportion of the American electorate
would be unwilling to vote for a qualified woman for president.
The First Lady
Much like the presidency itself, the role of the president’s spouse has been defined
by the individuals who have occupied it. And today, Melania Trump, a modern
mother who once worked as a model, is shaping the office to suit her own per-
sonality and her marriage. Historically, some first ladies have preferred to take a
very hands-on approach when it comes to politics and policy while others stay
out of the spotlight. That the American people typically accept both types of first
spouses is evidence of the open-mindedness with which the American people view
the role.
Some first ladies have used their proximity to the chief executive to influence
policy concerns broadly and forcefully. Several have acted “behind the scenes,” as
was the case with Edith Wilson, the wife of Woodrow Wilson. Others have taken
a more public role. Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, fought
for many causes during her husband’s administration, including human rights and
civil rights for African Americans. Hillary Clinton transformed the office of first
lady by serving, at her husband’s appointment, as the chair of a presidential task
Year
Percentage60
80
40
100
20
0
1940
33 33
52
54
57 55 57
53
66
73
80
78
82
92 94
92
76
87 89
95
64
55
48
48
44
41
39
41 39 40
29
23
16
17
12
7 5
5
8
19
12 11
1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 1976 2004 2013 2008 2015
Yes No
FIGURE 13.4 ■ America’s Willingness to Vote for a Woman President What has been the trend since the late 1930s
in the American electorate’s willingness to vote for a woman president? What factors do you think explain this shift?
SOURCES: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and Gallup
Evaluating the Facts
456 CHAPTER 13 | The Presidency
force on health care reform. Her role in the task force, and indeed throughout the
Clinton administration, proved to be a lightning rod for critics who thought that
a first lady should not be so prominent.
Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton’s successor, by contrast was a more reserved and
less public first lady, a persona that Michelle Obama seemed to emulate. Both
shunned the policy-oriented role that Hillary Clinton had forged, though each had
causes to which they drew attention. For Bush, that issue was reading and librar-
ies (Bush was a schoolteacher and a librarian before serving as First Lady), while
Obama prioritized the issue of childhood obesity, using her status to bring atten-
tion to the problem and to shape policy affecting it. By and large, though, Obama
preferred to focus on raising the Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha, and on the
more ceremonial aspect of serving as first lady.
Similar to Michelle Obama, Melania Trump has embraced a traditional inter-
pretation of the role, shying away from the policy and politics some former First
Ladies have pursued. Instead, she has participated in the ceremonial duties asso-
ciated with the position, and has also focused on raising the Trumps’ young son,
Barron, who was just 10 years old when his father was elected president. Melania
Trump has also prioritized the issue of cyber-bullying, advocating for more civility
on the Internet, particularly directed at children.
NoteStudied by 20 peopleNoteStudied by 10 peopleNoteStudied by 18 peopleNoteStudied by 29 peopleNoteStudied by 26 peopleNoteStudied by 7 people