Presidential Power H. Stobbs KAP

Copyright Notice Certain materials in this presentation are included under the fair use exemption of the U.S. Copyright Law and have been prepared with the multimedia fair use guidelines and are restricted from further use.

Formal Powers Administration (Bureaucracy) Commander-in-Chief Diplomacy Executive Order Judicial Appointments Pardons Veto

Informal Powers The power to persuade (Neustadt) Agenda Setting – Mandate –The “bully pulpit” –State of the Union address

Executive Orders

They have the force of law –Until retracted –Until Congress nullifies –Until ruled unconstitutional –1907 – 2002: 13, 000 –Fewer over time, but they’ve been more significant

Types of Executive Orders Management Orders (EO 1058: Smoke free workplace) Create agencies (Nixon used an EO to create the EPA)

Types of Executive Orders Enact major policy changes –Truman: Integrated military –Ike: EO – integration at Little Rock –Reagan, Clinton, Bush: Abortion counseling Create a new Status Quo – January, 1948 Harry Truman’s EO 9981 desegregating the armed services

Bargaining Executive bargaining –Agency heads have enough authority to have considerable influence over policy –Agency heads’ policy power nearly as great as the President’s –President’s power over agency head’s limited: they have Congress, clients, staff, and their own careers to think about

Congressional Bargaining –Congress needs the President to do things for them, just as he needs support from them –Failing to go along with the President can be hurtful if the President is popular

Veto Bargaining The Power of “I forbid”

A conservative tool: –Can STOP change from happening, but cannot MAKE change to happen –The more the wielder supports the status quo, the more useful is the veto

Power of the Veto Take it or leave it Pocket veto Line-item veto – Dead, dead, dead! –Veto rarely used; between 1945 and 1992 only 434 out of 17,000 bills vetoed –2, 562 vetoes since 1789: only 110 (4.3%) overridden –Vetoes more common On important bills With divided government Since 1945

Power of the Veto Game Veto powers come from the so-called “logic of anticipation,” making it a powerful tool for bargaining The role of uncertainty –What is the President’s reputation? –Who is the veto pivot? –What is the President’s ideal point?

Charles Cameron: The veto enables presidents to influence legislative outcomes Divided government does not make governing impossible, it encourages inter- branch bargaining Vetoes on both major and minor legislation are under unified government, but…

When government is divided and the legislation under consideration is important –Vetoes are not rare events (veto rate on “landmark legislation is 20%) –Vetoes are often part of a “veto chain” – a sequential bargaining process between Congress and the President –Presidents routinely and successfully use vetoes to extract policy concessions from Congress (in 80% of re-passed legislation, Congress made some sort of concession)

Cameron’s Point Veto bargaining (haggling between branches) tends to move policy toward the center of the political spectrum in which America is increasingly occupied by voters, but has generally been abandoned by the parties

Discussion What about Obama? Senate: 58 – 42 (and still counting) House: 25? – 17?

Samuel Kernell: Going Public Kernell does not see the presidency in Neustadt’s pluralistic light He says, that presidents rely increasingly on “going public” because divided government makes bargaining a less appealing and successful strategy There are dangers to adopting this strategy

Includes a lot of “fluff”, rather than substance Does not extend benefits for compliance but imposes costs for noncompliance More like a threat than a mutually advantageous bargain Because it entails posturing, it hardens positions and makes bargaining more difficult It undermines the legitimacy of other politicians, particularly of Congressmen

Main Arguments Only Outsiders can go public Politics has transitioned from traditionalized to institutionalized pluralism because of –Decline in party loyalty –Increase in the number of interest groups –The rise of political entrepreneurs –Bargaining is harder –Reneging is easier

Other Reasons for a Change in Strategy New technology makes going public easier The shift from conventions to primaries favors outsiders and strong campaigners Going public is useful in divided government

Constraints The President can be hurt politically if going public fails Going public generates resentment in Congress Flexibility is lost It’s a strategy of weakness – the last resort

Discussion What about Obama? Did he go public and over the heads of the “heir apparent,” her husband, and the traditional party elite?

Terry Moe: The Politicized Presidency Over time the Presidency has become increasingly Centralized Politicized Why?

Answer Politicization and centralization are means by which presidents increase and solidify their power in relationships to other institutions

Beginning with FDR and extending at least through Reagan, there has been ever more aggressive centralization and politicization Moe says this is not bad, if you want a strong President, because a neutral bureaucracy means a weak President

References “Introduction to the American Political Process.” Accessed 20 Nov 2008 at 48EB-8FDA-43F29CDB2B0A/0/lectures6_7.pdf 48EB-8FDA-43F29CDB2B0A/0/lectures6_7.pdf Charles Cameron. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Power of Negative Power. Cambridge, UK: 2000, Cambridge University Press. Nyhan, Bryan. “Does Obama Need a ‘Mandate’?” 10 Nov