The paradox of presidential leadership

Here's an Ezra Klein post which touches on a perennial subject regarding presidential power, we tend to assume they have more - and can do more - than they actually can:

Here’s the problem with being president: Everyone thinks that if you want to get anything done, you need to lead the public. As the presidential scholar Richard Neustadt famously wrote, “presidential power is the power to persuade.” And persuasion, as Washington understands it, means taking strong positions, giving speeches, getting out on the campaign trail and forcefully making your case.
But you know that every time you do that, you make it impossible for members of the other party to support you. Maybe you’ve seen this graph, and maybe you haven’t. But you know full well that presidents polarize. That you polarize. If you take a strong position, the other side will immediately take the opposite position. And in the American political system, you need the other side.

This is what I’ve come to think of as the Paradox of Presidential Leadership . . .
I strongly recommend that 2302 students read this post thoroughly. This is an important point regarding presidential leadership and power.

The Decline and Fall of the American Republic

Fitting subject matter, considering our recent class discussions. Ackerman wonders if the republic can survive the growing powers of the presidency. He isn't the first to worry about this. A review.

The Power of the President

In light of the midterm elections, some notable Democrats have written recommendations to Obama outlining how he can advance his agenda without Congress. Depending on one's ideology, this can be a good or bad thing, but it does highlight how the powers -- and tools -- of the office have expanded over American history.

The report mentioned the following mechanisms:

- executive orders
- rulemaking
- agency management
- convening and creating public-private relationships
- commanding the armed forces
- diplomacy

Their recommendations amount to a blueprint for action over the heads of Congress.

A Conservative Reappaises Carter's Presidency

And likes what he sees.

Presidencies are reconsidered from time to time, today's success is tomorrow's failure, and vice versa. Jimmy Carter began increasing the size of the military, deregulated tracking and the airlines, and a few other things that conservatives normally like. Being a Democrat, they'd be naturally inclined to discount his achievements, but things change.

Did George Washington Really add "So Help Me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office?

Thanks to a student for pointing this story out to me. The common story, which I've repeated, is that Washington altered the presidential oath of office to include "so help me God" at the end, thus beginning a tradition that lasts til today.

A historian points out that not only is there no evidence from that time that he did so (the story evolved decades later) altering the oath seem not to be the sort of thing Washington would have been inclined to do -- having just approved the oath as written in the Constitution. There's more to the argument.

Reminds me of the story regarding the cherry tree (look here and here).

This fits into our discussion of the personal presidency, the efforts to define in terms of the characters of the individuals who occupy it. The stories reflect less on Washington than on what we (or more appropriately the storytellers) want to believe about historical figures.

Please send more.

Are Liberals Rational in their Criticism of Obama?

Ross Douthat contributes to the ongoing question about whether we expect too much from presidents in general, and whether liberals specifically are getting a bit too exasperated with Obama.