{"id":401,"date":"2015-07-16T21:21:55","date_gmt":"2015-07-16T21:21:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/masteryusgovernment1x6xmaster\/?post_type=chapter&p=401"},"modified":"2019-05-31T21:29:23","modified_gmt":"2019-05-31T21:29:23","slug":"reading-the-powers-of-the-presidency","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-americangovernment\/chapter\/reading-the-powers-of-the-presidency\/","title":{"raw":"A. Reading: The Powers of the Presidency","rendered":"A. Reading: The Powers of the Presidency"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h2>\r\n

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. How is the presidency personalized?<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. What powers does the Constitution grant to the president?<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. How can Congress and the judiciary limit the president\u2019s powers?<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. How is the presidency organized?<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. What is the bureaucratizing of the presidency?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    The presidency is seen as the heart of the political system. It is personalized in the president as advocate of the national interest, chief agenda-setter, and chief legislator.[footnote]Jeffrey K. Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency<\/em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988).[\/footnote]<\/span> Scholars evaluate presidents according to such abilities as \u201cpublic communication,\u201d \u201corganizational capacity,\u201d \u201cpolitical skill,\u201d \u201cpolicy vision,\u201d and \u201ccognitive skill.\u201d[footnote]Fred I. Greenstein, The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama<\/em>, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).[\/footnote]<\/span> The media too personalize the office and push the ideal of the bold, decisive, active, public-minded president who altruistically governs the country.[footnote]For presidential depictions in the media, see Jeff Smith, The Presidents We Imagine<\/em> (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Two big summer movie hits, Independence Day<\/em><\/a> (1996) and Air Force One<\/em><\/a> (1997) are typical: ex-soldier presidents use physical rather than legal powers against (respectively) aliens and Russian terrorists. The president\u2019s tie comes off and heroism comes out, aided by fighter planes and machine guns. The television hit series The West Wing<\/em> recycled, with a bit more realism, the image of a patriarchal president boldly putting principle ahead of expedience.[footnote]Trevor Parry-Giles and Shawn J. Parry-Giles, The Prime-Time Presidency:<\/em> The West Wing and U.S. Nationalism<\/em> (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2006).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"200\"]\"Photo Whether swaggering protagonists of hit movies Independence Day andAir Force One in the 1990s or more down-to-earth heroes of the hit television series The West Wing, presidents are commonly portrayed in the media as bold, decisive, and principled.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Presidents are even presented as redeemers.[footnote]Mark Sachleben and Kevan M. Yenerall, Seeing the Bigger Picture: Understanding Politics through Film and Television<\/em> (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), chap. 4; and for a detailed survey, see Jeff Smith, The Presidents We Imagine<\/em> (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009).[\/footnote]<\/span> There are exceptions: presidents depicted as \u201csleaze balls\u201d or \u201csimpletons.\u201d[footnote]Stephanie Greco Larson, \u201cPolitical Cynicism and Its Contradictions in the Public, News, and Entertainment,\u201d in It\u2019s Show Time! Media, Politics, and Popular Culture<\/em>, ed. David A. Schultz (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 101\u2013116.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Enduring Image:\u00a0Mount Rushmore<\/h3>\r\n

    Carved into the granite rock of South Dakota\u2019s Mount Rushmore<\/a>, seven thousand feet above sea level, are the faces of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Sculpted between 1927 and 1941, this awe-inspiring monument achieved even greater worldwide celebrity as the setting for the hero and heroine to overcome the bad guys at the climax of Alfred Hitchcock\u2019s classic and ever-popular film North by Northwest<\/em><\/a> (1959).<\/p>\r\n

    This national monument did not start out devoted to American presidents. It was initially proposed to acknowledge regional heroes: General Custer, Buffalo Bill, the explorers Lewis and Clark. The sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, successfully argued that \u201ca nation\u2019s memorial should . . . have a serenity, a nobility, a power that reflects the gods who inspired them and suggests the gods they have become.\u201d[footnote]Cited in Robert J. Dean, Living Granite<\/em> (New York: Viking Press, 1949), 18.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    The Mount Rushmore monument is an enduring image of the American presidency by celebrating the greatness of four American presidents. The successors to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt do their part by trying to associate themselves with the office\u2019s magnificence and project an image of consensus rather than conflict, sometimes by giving speeches at the monument itself. A George W. Bush event placed the presidential podium at such an angle that the television camera could not help but put the incumbent in the same frame as his glorious predecessors.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"200\"]\"Photo George W. Bush speaking in front of Mt. Rushmore[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    The enduring image of Mount Rushmore highlights and exaggerates the importance of presidents as the decision makers in the American political system. It elevates the president over the presidency, the occupant over the office. All depends on the greatness of the individual president\u2014which means that the enduring image often contrasts the divinity of past presidents against the fallibility of the current incumbent.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    News depictions of the White House also focus on the person of the president. They portray a \u201csingle executive image\u201d with visibility no other political participant can boast. Presidents usually get positive coverage during crises foreign or domestic. The news media depict them speaking for and symbolically embodying the nation: giving a State of the Union address, welcoming foreign leaders, traveling abroad, representing the United States at an international conference. Ceremonial events produce laudatory coverage even during intense political controversy.<\/p>\r\n

    The media are fascinated with the personality and style of individual presidents. They attempt to pin them down. Sometimes, the analyses are contradictory. In one best-selling book, Bob Woodward depicted President George W. Bush as, in the words of reviewer Michiko Kakutani, \u201ca judicious, resolute leader . . . firmly in control of the ship of state.\u201d In a subsequent book, Woodward described Bush as \u201cpassive, impatient, sophomoric, and intellectual incurious . . . given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions.\u201d[footnote]Michiko Kakutani, \u201cA Portrait of the President as the Victim of His Own Certitude,\u201d review of State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III,<\/em> by Bob Woodward, New York Times<\/em>, September 30, 2006, A15; the earlier book is Bush at War<\/em> (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    This media focus tells only part of the story.[footnote]On the contrast of \u201csingle executive image\u201d and the \u201cplural executive reality,\u201d see Lyn Ragsdale, Presidential Politics<\/em> (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1993).[\/footnote]<\/span> The president\u2019s independence and ability to act are constrained in several ways, most notably by the Constitution.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    The Presidency in the Constitution<\/h2>\r\n

    Article II of the Constitution outlines the office of president. Specific powers are few; almost all are exercised in conjunction with other branches of the federal government.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Table 1.<\/span> Bases for Presidential Powers in the Constitution<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2<\/td>\r\nVeto<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Pocket veto<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 1<\/td>\r\n\u201cThe Executive Power shall be vested in a President\u2026\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7<\/td>\r\nSpecific presidential oath of office stated explicitly (as is not the case with other offices)<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1<\/td>\r\nCommander in chief of armed forces and state militias<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1<\/td>\r\nCan require opinions of departmental secretaries<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1<\/td>\r\nReprieves and pardons for offences against the United States<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2<\/td>\r\nMake treaties<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    appoint ambassadors, executive officers, judges<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3<\/td>\r\nRecess appointments<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Article II, Section 3<\/td>\r\nState of the Union message and recommendation of legislative measures to Congress<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Convene special sessions of Congress<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Receive ambassadors and other ministers<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    \u201cHe shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Presidents exercise only one power that cannot be limited by other branches: the pardon. So controversial decisions like President Gerald Ford\u2019s pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon for \u201ccrimes he committed or may have committed\u201d or President Jimmy Carter\u2019s blanket amnesty to all who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War could not have been overturned.<\/p>\r\n

    Presidents have more powers and responsibilities in foreign and defense policy than in domestic affairs. They are the commanders in chief of the armed forces; they decide how (and increasingly when) to wage war. Presidents have the power to make treaties to be approved by the Senate; the president is America\u2019s chief diplomat. As head of state, the president speaks for the nation to other world leaders and receives ambassadors.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0The Constitution<\/h3>\r\n

    Read the entire Constitution here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    The Constitution directs presidents to be part of the legislative process. In the annual State of the Union address, presidents point out problems and recommend legislation to Congress. Presidents can convene special sessions of Congress, possibly to \u201cjump-start\u201d discussion of their proposals. Presidents can veto a bill passed by Congress, returning it with written objections. Congress can then override the veto. Finally, the Constitution instructs presidents to be in charge of the executive branch. Along with naming judges, presidents appoint ambassadors and executive officers. These appointments require Senate confirmation. If Congress is not in session, presidents can make temporary appointments known as recess appointments<\/a><\/span> without Senate confirmation, good until the end of the next session of Congress.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    The Constitution\u2019s phrase \u201che shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed\u201d gives the president the job to oversee the implementation of laws. Thus presidents are empowered to issue executive orders to interpret and carry out legislation. They supervise other officers of the executive branch and can require them to justify their actions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Congressional Limitations on Presidential Power<\/h3>\r\n

    Almost all presidential powers rely on what Congress does (or does not do). Presidential executive orders implement the law but Congress can overrule such orders by changing the law. And many presidential powers are delegated powers<\/a><\/span> that Congress has accorded presidents to exercise on its behalf\u2014and that it can cut back or rescind.<\/p>\r\n

    Congress can challenge presidential powers single-handedly. One way is to amend the Constitution. The Twenty-Second Amendment<\/a> was enacted in the wake of the only president to serve more than two terms, the powerful Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). Presidents now may serve no more than two terms. The last presidents to serve eight years, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, quickly became \u201clame ducks\u201d after their reelection and lost momentum toward the ends of their second terms, when attention switched to contests over their successors.<\/p>\r\n

    Impeachment<\/a><\/span> gives Congress \u201csole power\u201d to remove presidents (among others) from office.[footnote]The language in the Constitution comes from Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, and Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. This section draws from Michael Les Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson<\/em>(New York: Norton, 1973); John R. Labowitz, Presidential Impeachment<\/em> (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978); and Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis<\/em>, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).[\/footnote]<\/span> It works in two stages. The House decides whether or not to accuse the president of wrongdoing. If a simple majority in the House votes to impeach the president, the Senate acts as jury, House members are prosecutors, and the chief justice presides. A two-thirds vote by the Senate is necessary for conviction, the punishment for which is removal and disqualification from office.<\/p>\r\n

    Prior to the 1970s, presidential impeachment was deemed the founders\u2019 \u201crusted blunderbuss that will probably never be taken in hand again.\u201d[footnote]The early twentieth-century political scientist Henry Jones Ford quoted in John R. Labowitz, Presidential Impeachment<\/em> (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978), 91.[\/footnote]<\/span> Only one president (Andrew Johnson in 1868) had been impeached\u2014over policy disagreements with Congress on the Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. Johnson avoided removal by a single senator\u2019s vote.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Links:\u00a0Presidential Impeachment<\/h3>\r\n

    Read about the impeachment trial of President Johnson here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    Read about the impeachment trial of President Clinton here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Since the 1970s, the blunderbuss has been dusted off. A bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee recommended the impeachment of President Nixon in 1974. Nixon surely would have been impeached and convicted had he not resigned first. President Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998, though acquitted by the Senate in 1999, for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"450\"]\"Photo Bill Clinton was only the second US president to be impeached for \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors\u201d and stand trial in the Senate. Not surprisingly, in this day of huge media attention to court proceedings, the presidential impeachment trial was covered live by television and became endless fodder for twenty-four-hour-news channels. Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the trial. The House \u201cmanagers\u201d (i.e., prosecutors) of the case are on the left, the president\u2019s lawyers on the right.[\/caption]\r\n

    Much of the public finds impeachment a standard part of the political system. For example, a June 2005 Zogby poll found that 42 percent of the public agreed with the statement \u201cIf President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.\u201d[footnote]Polling Report<\/a>, accessed July 7, 2005.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Impeachment can be a threat to presidents who chafe at congressional opposition or restrictions. All three impeached presidents had been accused by members of Congress of abuse of power well before allegations of law-breaking. Impeachment is handy because it refers only vaguely to official misconduct: \u201ctreason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    From Congress\u2019s perspective, impeachment can work. Nixon resigned because he knew he would be removed from office. Even presidential acquittals help Congress out. Impeachment forced Johnson to pledge good behavior and thus \u201csucceeded in its primary goal: to safeguard Reconstruction from presidential obstruction.\u201d[footnote]Michael Les Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson\u00a0<\/em>(New York: Norton, 1973), 139.[\/footnote]<\/span> Clinton had to go out of his way to assuage congressional Democrats, who had been far from content with a number of his initiatives; by the time the impeachment trial was concluded, the president was an all-but-lame duck.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Judicial Limitations on Presidential Power<\/h3>\r\n

    Presidents claim inherent powers<\/a><\/span> not explicitly stated but that are intrinsic to the office or implied by the language of the Constitution. They rely on three key phrases. First, in contrast to Article I\u2019s detailed powers of Congress, Article II states that \u201cThe Executive Power shall be vested in a President.\u201d Second, the presidential oath of office is spelled out, implying a special guardianship of the Constitution. Third, the job of ensuring that \u201cthe Laws be faithfully executed\u201d can denote a duty to protect the country and political system as a whole.<\/p>\r\n

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court can and does rule on whether presidents have inherent powers. Its rulings have both expanded and limited presidential power. For instance, the justices concluded in 1936 that the president, the embodiment of the United States outside its borders, can act on its behalf in foreign policy.<\/p>\r\n

    But the court usually looks to congressional action (or inaction) to define when a president can invoke inherent powers. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed inherent emergency powers during the Korean War. Facing a steel strike he said would interrupt defense production, Truman ordered his secretary of commerce to seize the major steel mills and keep production going. The Supreme Court rejected this move: \u201cthe President\u2019s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.\u201d[footnote]Respectively, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, 299 US 304 (1936); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    The Vice Presidency<\/h3>\r\n

    Only two positions in the presidency are elected: the president and vice president. With ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the latter office may be filled by the president, who appoints a vice president subject to majority votes in both the House and the Senate. This process was used twice in the 1970s. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid allegations of corruption; President Nixon named House Minority Leader Gerald Ford to the post. When Nixon resigned during the Watergate scandal, Ford became president\u2014the only person to hold the office without an election\u2014and named former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller vice president.<\/p>\r\n

    The vice president\u2019s sole duties in the Constitution are to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes, and to be ready to assume the presidency in the event of a vacancy or disability. Eight of the forty-three presidents had been vice presidents who succeeded a dead president (four times from assassinations). Otherwise, vice presidents have few official tasks. The first vice president, John Adams, told the Senate, \u201cI am Vice President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.\u201d More earthily, FDR\u2019s first vice president, John Nance Garner, called the office \u201cnot worth a bucket of warm piss.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    In recent years, vice presidents are more publicly visible and have taken on more tasks and responsibilities. Ford and Rockefeller began this trend in the 1970s, demanding enhanced day-to-day responsibilities and staff as conditions for taking the job. Vice presidents now have a West Wing office, are given prominent assignments, and receive distinct funds for a staff under their control parallel to the president\u2019s staff.[footnote]Paul C. Light, Vice-Presidential Power: Advice and Influence in the White House<\/em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Arguably the most powerful occupant of the office ever was Dick Cheney. This former doctoral candidate in political science (at the University of Wisconsin) had been a White House chief of staff, member of Congress, and cabinet secretary. He possessed an unrivaled knowledge of the power relations within government and of how to accumulate and exercise power. As George W. Bush\u2019s vice president, he had access to every cabinet and subcabinet meeting he wanted to attend, chaired the board charged with reviewing the budget, took on important issues (security, energy, economy), ran task forces, was involved in nominations and appointments, and lobbied Congress.[footnote]Barton Gellman and Jo Becker, \u201cAngler: The Cheney Vice Presidency,\u201d Washington Post<\/em>, June 24, 2007, A1.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Organizing the Presidency<\/h2>\r\n

    The presidency is organized around two offices. They enhance but also constrain the president\u2019s power.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    The Executive Office of the President<\/h3>\r\n

    The Executive Office of the President (EOP)<\/a><\/span> is an umbrella organization encompassing all presidential staff agencies. Most offices in the EOP, such as the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget, are established by law; some positions require Senate confirmation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0The EOP<\/h3>\r\n

    Learn about the EOP here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Inside the EOP is the White House Office (WHO)<\/a><\/span>. It contains the president\u2019s personal staff of assistants and advisors; most are exempt from Congress\u2019s purview. Though presidents have a free hand with the personnel and structure of the WHO, its organization has been the same for decades. Starting with Nixon in 1969, each president has named a chief of staff to head and supervise the White House staff, a press secretary to interact with the news media, and a director of communication to oversee the White House message. The national security advisor is well placed to become the most powerful architect of foreign policy, rivaling or surpassing the secretary of state. New offices, such as President Bush\u2019s creation of an office for faith-based initiatives, are rare; such positions get placed on top of or alongside old arrangements.<\/p>\r\n

    Even activities of a highly informal role such as the first lady<\/a>, the president\u2019s spouse, are standardized. It is no longer enough for them to host White House social events. They are brought out to travel and campaign. They are presidents\u2019 intimate confidantes, have staffers of their own, and advocate popular policies (e.g., Lady Bird Johnson\u2019s highway beautification, Nancy Reagan\u2019s antidrug crusade, and Barbara Bush\u2019s literacy programs). Hillary Rodham Clinton faced controversy as first lady by defying expectations of being above the policy fray; she was appointed by her husband to head the task force to draft a legislative bill for a national health-care system. Clinton\u2019s successor, Laura Bush, returned the first ladyship to a more social, less policy-minded role. Michelle Obama\u2019s cause is healthy eating. She has gone beyond advocacy to having Walmart lower prices on the fruit and vegetables it sells and reducing the amount of fat, sugar, and salt in its foods.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Bureaucratizing the Presidency<\/h3>\r\n

    The media and the public expect presidents to put their marks on the office and on history. But \u201cthe institution makes presidents as much if not more than presidents make the institution.\u201d[footnote]Lyn Ragsdale and John J. Theis III, \u201cThe Institutionalization of the American Presidency, 1924\u201392,\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em> 41, no. 4 (October 1997): 1280\u20131318 at 1316. See also John P. Burke, The Institutional Presidency<\/em>, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    The presidency became a complex institution starting with FDR, who was elected to four terms during the Great Depression and World War II. Prior to FDR, presidents\u2019 staffs were small. As presidents took on responsibilities and jobs, often at Congress\u2019s initiative, the presidency grew and expanded.<\/p>\r\n

    Not only is the presidency bigger since FDR, but the division of labor within an administration is far more complex. Fiction and nonfiction media depict generalist staffers reporting to the president, who makes the real decisions. But the WHO is now a miniature bureaucracy. The WHO\u2019s first staff in 1939 consisted of eight generalists: three secretaries to the president, three administrative assistants, a personal secretary, an executive clerk. Since the 1980s, the WHO has consisted of around eighty staffers; almost all either have a substantive specialty (e.g., national security, women\u2019s initiatives, environment, health policy) or emphasize specific activities (e.g., White House legal counsel, director of press advance, public liaison, legislative liaison, chief speechwriter, director of scheduling). The White House Office adds another organization for presidents to direct\u2014or lose track of.<\/p>\r\n

    The large staff in the White House, and the Old Executive Office Building next door, is no guarantee of a president\u2019s power. These staffers \u201cmake a great many decisions themselves, acting in the name of the president. In fact, the majority of White House decisions\u2014all but the most crucial\u2014are made by presidential assistants.\u201d[footnote]John H. Kessel, Presidents, the Presidency, and the Political Environment<\/em>(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 2.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Most of these labor in anonymity unless they make impolitic remarks. For example, two of President Bush\u2019s otherwise obscure chief economic advisors got into hot water, one for (accurately) predicting that the cost of war in Iraq might top $200 billion, another for praising the outsourcing of jobs.[footnote]Edmund L. Andrews, \u201cEconomics Adviser Learns the Principles of Politics,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, February 26, 2004, C4.[\/footnote]<\/span> Relatively few White House staffers\u2014the chief of staff, the national security advisor, the press secretary\u2014become household names in the news, and even they are quick to be quoted saying, \u201cas the president has said\u201d or \u201cthe president decided.\u201d But often what presidents say or do is what staffers told or wrote for them to say or do.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Comparing Content:\u00a0Days in the Life of the White House<\/h3>\r\n

    On April 25, 2001, President George W. Bush was celebrating his first one hundred days in office. He sought to avoid the misstep of his father who ignored the media frame of the first one hundred days as the make-or-break period for a presidency and who thus seemed confused and aimless.<\/p>\r\n

    As part of this campaign, Bush invited Stephen Crowley, a New York Times<\/em> photographer, to follow him and present, as Crowley wrote in his accompanying text, \u201can unusual behind-the-scenes view of how he conducts business.\u201d[footnote]Stephen Crowley, \u201cAnd on the 96th Day\u2026,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, April 29, 2001, Week in Review, 3.[\/footnote]<\/span> Naturally, the photos implied that the White House revolves completely around the president. At 6:45 a.m., \u201cthe White House came to life\u201d\u2014when a light came on in the president\u2019s upstairs residence. The sole task shown for Bush\u2019s personal assistant was peering through a peephole to monitor the president\u2019s national security briefing. Crowley wrote \u201cthe workday ended 15 hours after it began,\u201d after meetings, interviews, a stadium speech, and a fundraiser.<\/p>\r\n

    We get a different understanding of how the White House works from following not the president but some other denizen of the West Wing around for a day or so. That is what filmmaker Theodore Bogosian did: he shadowed Clinton\u2019s then press secretary Joe Lockhart for a few days in mid-2000 with a high-definition television camera. In the revealing one-hour video, The Press Secretary<\/em>, activities of the White House are shown to revolve around Lockhart as much as Crowley\u2019s photographic essay showed they did around Bush. Even with the hands-on Bill Clinton, the video raises questions about who works for whom. Lockhart is shown devising tag lines, even policy with his associates in the press office. He instructs the president what to say as much as the other way around. He confides to the camera he is nervous about letting Clinton speak off-the-cuff.<\/p>\r\n

    Of course, the White House does not revolve around the person of the press secretary. Neither does it revolve entirely around the person of the president. Both are lone individuals out of many who collectively make up the institution known as the presidency.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Key Takeaways<\/h2>\r\n

    The entertainment and news media personalize the presidency, depicting the president as the dynamic center of the political system. The Constitution foresaw the presidency as an energetic office with one person in charge. Yet the Constitution gave the office and its incumbent few powers, most of which can be countered by other branches of government. The presidency is bureaucratically organized and includes agencies, offices, and staff. They are often beyond a president\u2019s direct control.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

    \n

    Learning Objectives<\/h2>\n

    After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. How is the presidency personalized?<\/li>\n
    2. What powers does the Constitution grant to the president?<\/li>\n
    3. How can Congress and the judiciary limit the president\u2019s powers?<\/li>\n
    4. How is the presidency organized?<\/li>\n
    5. What is the bureaucratizing of the presidency?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

      The presidency is seen as the heart of the political system. It is personalized in the president as advocate of the national interest, chief agenda-setter, and chief legislator.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Scholars evaluate presidents according to such abilities as \u201cpublic communication,\u201d \u201corganizational capacity,\u201d \u201cpolitical skill,\u201d \u201cpolicy vision,\u201d and \u201ccognitive skill.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The media too personalize the office and push the ideal of the bold, decisive, active, public-minded president who altruistically governs the country.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Two big summer movie hits, Independence Day<\/em><\/a> (1996) and Air Force One<\/em><\/a> (1997) are typical: ex-soldier presidents use physical rather than legal powers against (respectively) aliens and Russian terrorists. The president\u2019s tie comes off and heroism comes out, aided by fighter planes and machine guns. The television hit series The West Wing<\/em> recycled, with a bit more realism, the image of a patriarchal president boldly putting principle ahead of expedience.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Photo<\/p>\n

      Whether swaggering protagonists of hit movies Independence Day andAir Force One in the 1990s or more down-to-earth heroes of the hit television series The West Wing, presidents are commonly portrayed in the media as bold, decisive, and principled.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      Presidents are even presented as redeemers.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> There are exceptions: presidents depicted as \u201csleaze balls\u201d or \u201csimpletons.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Enduring Image:\u00a0Mount Rushmore<\/h3>\n

      Carved into the granite rock of South Dakota\u2019s Mount Rushmore<\/a>, seven thousand feet above sea level, are the faces of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Sculpted between 1927 and 1941, this awe-inspiring monument achieved even greater worldwide celebrity as the setting for the hero and heroine to overcome the bad guys at the climax of Alfred Hitchcock\u2019s classic and ever-popular film North by Northwest<\/em><\/a> (1959).<\/p>\n

      This national monument did not start out devoted to American presidents. It was initially proposed to acknowledge regional heroes: General Custer, Buffalo Bill, the explorers Lewis and Clark. The sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, successfully argued that \u201ca nation\u2019s memorial should . . . have a serenity, a nobility, a power that reflects the gods who inspired them and suggests the gods they have become.\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      The Mount Rushmore monument is an enduring image of the American presidency by celebrating the greatness of four American presidents. The successors to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt do their part by trying to associate themselves with the office\u2019s magnificence and project an image of consensus rather than conflict, sometimes by giving speeches at the monument itself. A George W. Bush event placed the presidential podium at such an angle that the television camera could not help but put the incumbent in the same frame as his glorious predecessors.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Photo<\/p>\n

      George W. Bush speaking in front of Mt. Rushmore<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      The enduring image of Mount Rushmore highlights and exaggerates the importance of presidents as the decision makers in the American political system. It elevates the president over the presidency, the occupant over the office. All depends on the greatness of the individual president\u2014which means that the enduring image often contrasts the divinity of past presidents against the fallibility of the current incumbent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      News depictions of the White House also focus on the person of the president. They portray a \u201csingle executive image\u201d with visibility no other political participant can boast. Presidents usually get positive coverage during crises foreign or domestic. The news media depict them speaking for and symbolically embodying the nation: giving a State of the Union address, welcoming foreign leaders, traveling abroad, representing the United States at an international conference. Ceremonial events produce laudatory coverage even during intense political controversy.<\/p>\n

      The media are fascinated with the personality and style of individual presidents. They attempt to pin them down. Sometimes, the analyses are contradictory. In one best-selling book, Bob Woodward depicted President George W. Bush as, in the words of reviewer Michiko Kakutani, \u201ca judicious, resolute leader . . . firmly in control of the ship of state.\u201d In a subsequent book, Woodward described Bush as \u201cpassive, impatient, sophomoric, and intellectual incurious . . . given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      This media focus tells only part of the story.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The president\u2019s independence and ability to act are constrained in several ways, most notably by the Constitution.<\/p>\n

      \n

      The Presidency in the Constitution<\/h2>\n

      Article II of the Constitution outlines the office of president. Specific powers are few; almost all are exercised in conjunction with other branches of the federal government.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Table 1.<\/span> Bases for Presidential Powers in the Constitution<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2<\/td>\nVeto<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Pocket veto<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 1<\/td>\n\u201cThe Executive Power shall be vested in a President\u2026\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7<\/td>\nSpecific presidential oath of office stated explicitly (as is not the case with other offices)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1<\/td>\nCommander in chief of armed forces and state militias<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1<\/td>\nCan require opinions of departmental secretaries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1<\/td>\nReprieves and pardons for offences against the United States<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2<\/td>\nMake treaties<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      appoint ambassadors, executive officers, judges<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3<\/td>\nRecess appointments<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Article II, Section 3<\/td>\nState of the Union message and recommendation of legislative measures to Congress<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Convene special sessions of Congress<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Receive ambassadors and other ministers<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      \u201cHe shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

      Presidents exercise only one power that cannot be limited by other branches: the pardon. So controversial decisions like President Gerald Ford\u2019s pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon for \u201ccrimes he committed or may have committed\u201d or President Jimmy Carter\u2019s blanket amnesty to all who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War could not have been overturned.<\/p>\n

      Presidents have more powers and responsibilities in foreign and defense policy than in domestic affairs. They are the commanders in chief of the armed forces; they decide how (and increasingly when) to wage war. Presidents have the power to make treaties to be approved by the Senate; the president is America\u2019s chief diplomat. As head of state, the president speaks for the nation to other world leaders and receives ambassadors.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0The Constitution<\/h3>\n

      Read the entire Constitution here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      The Constitution directs presidents to be part of the legislative process. In the annual State of the Union address, presidents point out problems and recommend legislation to Congress. Presidents can convene special sessions of Congress, possibly to \u201cjump-start\u201d discussion of their proposals. Presidents can veto a bill passed by Congress, returning it with written objections. Congress can then override the veto. Finally, the Constitution instructs presidents to be in charge of the executive branch. Along with naming judges, presidents appoint ambassadors and executive officers. These appointments require Senate confirmation. If Congress is not in session, presidents can make temporary appointments known as recess appointments<\/a><\/span> without Senate confirmation, good until the end of the next session of Congress.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      The Constitution\u2019s phrase \u201che shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed\u201d gives the president the job to oversee the implementation of laws. Thus presidents are empowered to issue executive orders to interpret and carry out legislation. They supervise other officers of the executive branch and can require them to justify their actions.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Congressional Limitations on Presidential Power<\/h3>\n

      Almost all presidential powers rely on what Congress does (or does not do). Presidential executive orders implement the law but Congress can overrule such orders by changing the law. And many presidential powers are delegated powers<\/a><\/span> that Congress has accorded presidents to exercise on its behalf\u2014and that it can cut back or rescind.<\/p>\n

      Congress can challenge presidential powers single-handedly. One way is to amend the Constitution. The Twenty-Second Amendment<\/a> was enacted in the wake of the only president to serve more than two terms, the powerful Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). Presidents now may serve no more than two terms. The last presidents to serve eight years, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, quickly became \u201clame ducks\u201d after their reelection and lost momentum toward the ends of their second terms, when attention switched to contests over their successors.<\/p>\n

      Impeachment<\/a><\/span> gives Congress \u201csole power\u201d to remove presidents (among others) from office.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> It works in two stages. The House decides whether or not to accuse the president of wrongdoing. If a simple majority in the House votes to impeach the president, the Senate acts as jury, House members are prosecutors, and the chief justice presides. A two-thirds vote by the Senate is necessary for conviction, the punishment for which is removal and disqualification from office.<\/p>\n

      Prior to the 1970s, presidential impeachment was deemed the founders\u2019 \u201crusted blunderbuss that will probably never be taken in hand again.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Only one president (Andrew Johnson in 1868) had been impeached\u2014over policy disagreements with Congress on the Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. Johnson avoided removal by a single senator\u2019s vote.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Links:\u00a0Presidential Impeachment<\/h3>\n

      Read about the impeachment trial of President Johnson here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Read about the impeachment trial of President Clinton here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Since the 1970s, the blunderbuss has been dusted off. A bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee recommended the impeachment of President Nixon in 1974. Nixon surely would have been impeached and convicted had he not resigned first. President Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998, though acquitted by the Senate in 1999, for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Photo<\/p>\n

      Bill Clinton was only the second US president to be impeached for \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors\u201d and stand trial in the Senate. Not surprisingly, in this day of huge media attention to court proceedings, the presidential impeachment trial was covered live by television and became endless fodder for twenty-four-hour-news channels. Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the trial. The House \u201cmanagers\u201d (i.e., prosecutors) of the case are on the left, the president\u2019s lawyers on the right.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Much of the public finds impeachment a standard part of the political system. For example, a June 2005 Zogby poll found that 42 percent of the public agreed with the statement \u201cIf President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Impeachment can be a threat to presidents who chafe at congressional opposition or restrictions. All three impeached presidents had been accused by members of Congress of abuse of power well before allegations of law-breaking. Impeachment is handy because it refers only vaguely to official misconduct: \u201ctreason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.\u201d<\/p>\n

      From Congress\u2019s perspective, impeachment can work. Nixon resigned because he knew he would be removed from office. Even presidential acquittals help Congress out. Impeachment forced Johnson to pledge good behavior and thus \u201csucceeded in its primary goal: to safeguard Reconstruction from presidential obstruction.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Clinton had to go out of his way to assuage congressional Democrats, who had been far from content with a number of his initiatives; by the time the impeachment trial was concluded, the president was an all-but-lame duck.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Judicial Limitations on Presidential Power<\/h3>\n

      Presidents claim inherent powers<\/a><\/span> not explicitly stated but that are intrinsic to the office or implied by the language of the Constitution. They rely on three key phrases. First, in contrast to Article I\u2019s detailed powers of Congress, Article II states that \u201cThe Executive Power shall be vested in a President.\u201d Second, the presidential oath of office is spelled out, implying a special guardianship of the Constitution. Third, the job of ensuring that \u201cthe Laws be faithfully executed\u201d can denote a duty to protect the country and political system as a whole.<\/p>\n

      Ultimately, the Supreme Court can and does rule on whether presidents have inherent powers. Its rulings have both expanded and limited presidential power. For instance, the justices concluded in 1936 that the president, the embodiment of the United States outside its borders, can act on its behalf in foreign policy.<\/p>\n

      But the court usually looks to congressional action (or inaction) to define when a president can invoke inherent powers. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed inherent emergency powers during the Korean War. Facing a steel strike he said would interrupt defense production, Truman ordered his secretary of commerce to seize the major steel mills and keep production going. The Supreme Court rejected this move: \u201cthe President\u2019s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      The Vice Presidency<\/h3>\n

      Only two positions in the presidency are elected: the president and vice president. With ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the latter office may be filled by the president, who appoints a vice president subject to majority votes in both the House and the Senate. This process was used twice in the 1970s. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid allegations of corruption; President Nixon named House Minority Leader Gerald Ford to the post. When Nixon resigned during the Watergate scandal, Ford became president\u2014the only person to hold the office without an election\u2014and named former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller vice president.<\/p>\n

      The vice president\u2019s sole duties in the Constitution are to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes, and to be ready to assume the presidency in the event of a vacancy or disability. Eight of the forty-three presidents had been vice presidents who succeeded a dead president (four times from assassinations). Otherwise, vice presidents have few official tasks. The first vice president, John Adams, told the Senate, \u201cI am Vice President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.\u201d More earthily, FDR\u2019s first vice president, John Nance Garner, called the office \u201cnot worth a bucket of warm piss.\u201d<\/p>\n

      In recent years, vice presidents are more publicly visible and have taken on more tasks and responsibilities. Ford and Rockefeller began this trend in the 1970s, demanding enhanced day-to-day responsibilities and staff as conditions for taking the job. Vice presidents now have a West Wing office, are given prominent assignments, and receive distinct funds for a staff under their control parallel to the president\u2019s staff.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Arguably the most powerful occupant of the office ever was Dick Cheney. This former doctoral candidate in political science (at the University of Wisconsin) had been a White House chief of staff, member of Congress, and cabinet secretary. He possessed an unrivaled knowledge of the power relations within government and of how to accumulate and exercise power. As George W. Bush\u2019s vice president, he had access to every cabinet and subcabinet meeting he wanted to attend, chaired the board charged with reviewing the budget, took on important issues (security, energy, economy), ran task forces, was involved in nominations and appointments, and lobbied Congress.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Organizing the Presidency<\/h2>\n

      The presidency is organized around two offices. They enhance but also constrain the president\u2019s power.<\/p>\n

      \n

      The Executive Office of the President<\/h3>\n

      The Executive Office of the President (EOP)<\/a><\/span> is an umbrella organization encompassing all presidential staff agencies. Most offices in the EOP, such as the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget, are established by law; some positions require Senate confirmation.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0The EOP<\/h3>\n

      Learn about the EOP here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Inside the EOP is the White House Office (WHO)<\/a><\/span>. It contains the president\u2019s personal staff of assistants and advisors; most are exempt from Congress\u2019s purview. Though presidents have a free hand with the personnel and structure of the WHO, its organization has been the same for decades. Starting with Nixon in 1969, each president has named a chief of staff to head and supervise the White House staff, a press secretary to interact with the news media, and a director of communication to oversee the White House message. The national security advisor is well placed to become the most powerful architect of foreign policy, rivaling or surpassing the secretary of state. New offices, such as President Bush\u2019s creation of an office for faith-based initiatives, are rare; such positions get placed on top of or alongside old arrangements.<\/p>\n

      Even activities of a highly informal role such as the first lady<\/a>, the president\u2019s spouse, are standardized. It is no longer enough for them to host White House social events. They are brought out to travel and campaign. They are presidents\u2019 intimate confidantes, have staffers of their own, and advocate popular policies (e.g., Lady Bird Johnson\u2019s highway beautification, Nancy Reagan\u2019s antidrug crusade, and Barbara Bush\u2019s literacy programs). Hillary Rodham Clinton faced controversy as first lady by defying expectations of being above the policy fray; she was appointed by her husband to head the task force to draft a legislative bill for a national health-care system. Clinton\u2019s successor, Laura Bush, returned the first ladyship to a more social, less policy-minded role. Michelle Obama\u2019s cause is healthy eating. She has gone beyond advocacy to having Walmart lower prices on the fruit and vegetables it sells and reducing the amount of fat, sugar, and salt in its foods.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Bureaucratizing the Presidency<\/h3>\n

      The media and the public expect presidents to put their marks on the office and on history. But \u201cthe institution makes presidents as much if not more than presidents make the institution.\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      The presidency became a complex institution starting with FDR, who was elected to four terms during the Great Depression and World War II. Prior to FDR, presidents\u2019 staffs were small. As presidents took on responsibilities and jobs, often at Congress\u2019s initiative, the presidency grew and expanded.<\/p>\n

      Not only is the presidency bigger since FDR, but the division of labor within an administration is far more complex. Fiction and nonfiction media depict generalist staffers reporting to the president, who makes the real decisions. But the WHO is now a miniature bureaucracy. The WHO\u2019s first staff in 1939 consisted of eight generalists: three secretaries to the president, three administrative assistants, a personal secretary, an executive clerk. Since the 1980s, the WHO has consisted of around eighty staffers; almost all either have a substantive specialty (e.g., national security, women\u2019s initiatives, environment, health policy) or emphasize specific activities (e.g., White House legal counsel, director of press advance, public liaison, legislative liaison, chief speechwriter, director of scheduling). The White House Office adds another organization for presidents to direct\u2014or lose track of.<\/p>\n

      The large staff in the White House, and the Old Executive Office Building next door, is no guarantee of a president\u2019s power. These staffers \u201cmake a great many decisions themselves, acting in the name of the president. In fact, the majority of White House decisions\u2014all but the most crucial\u2014are made by presidential assistants.\u201d[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Most of these labor in anonymity unless they make impolitic remarks. For example, two of President Bush\u2019s otherwise obscure chief economic advisors got into hot water, one for (accurately) predicting that the cost of war in Iraq might top $200 billion, another for praising the outsourcing of jobs.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Relatively few White House staffers\u2014the chief of staff, the national security advisor, the press secretary\u2014become household names in the news, and even they are quick to be quoted saying, \u201cas the president has said\u201d or \u201cthe president decided.\u201d But often what presidents say or do is what staffers told or wrote for them to say or do.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Comparing Content:\u00a0Days in the Life of the White House<\/h3>\n

      On April 25, 2001, President George W. Bush was celebrating his first one hundred days in office. He sought to avoid the misstep of his father who ignored the media frame of the first one hundred days as the make-or-break period for a presidency and who thus seemed confused and aimless.<\/p>\n

      As part of this campaign, Bush invited Stephen Crowley, a New York Times<\/em> photographer, to follow him and present, as Crowley wrote in his accompanying text, \u201can unusual behind-the-scenes view of how he conducts business.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Naturally, the photos implied that the White House revolves completely around the president. At 6:45 a.m., \u201cthe White House came to life\u201d\u2014when a light came on in the president\u2019s upstairs residence. The sole task shown for Bush\u2019s personal assistant was peering through a peephole to monitor the president\u2019s national security briefing. Crowley wrote \u201cthe workday ended 15 hours after it began,\u201d after meetings, interviews, a stadium speech, and a fundraiser.<\/p>\n

      We get a different understanding of how the White House works from following not the president but some other denizen of the West Wing around for a day or so. That is what filmmaker Theodore Bogosian did: he shadowed Clinton\u2019s then press secretary Joe Lockhart for a few days in mid-2000 with a high-definition television camera. In the revealing one-hour video, The Press Secretary<\/em>, activities of the White House are shown to revolve around Lockhart as much as Crowley\u2019s photographic essay showed they did around Bush. Even with the hands-on Bill Clinton, the video raises questions about who works for whom. Lockhart is shown devising tag lines, even policy with his associates in the press office. He instructs the president what to say as much as the other way around. He confides to the camera he is nervous about letting Clinton speak off-the-cuff.<\/p>\n

      Of course, the White House does not revolve around the person of the press secretary. Neither does it revolve entirely around the person of the president. Both are lone individuals out of many who collectively make up the institution known as the presidency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n

      The entertainment and news media personalize the presidency, depicting the president as the dynamic center of the political system. The Constitution foresaw the presidency as an energetic office with one person in charge. Yet the Constitution gave the office and its incumbent few powers, most of which can be countered by other branches of government. The presidency is bureaucratically organized and includes agencies, offices, and staff. They are often beyond a president\u2019s direct control.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t

      Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
      CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>