Dependent factors

                There are several factors that determine the level of power held by the President. Of these, the most important is public perception of the threat posed to national security. The American public will in times of great uncertainty instinctively look to the President for leadership and decisive action. As commander-in-chief, Head of State and the only figure with a nationwide mandate; this is surely to be expected. From a historical perspective, it is interesting to note that the powers of the President tend to increase during times when the national appears to be under threat. Since the turn of the century, one would only have to consider the power grab implemented by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. The Patriot Act is emblematic of a time when the American people felt a genuine sense of fear and uncertainty. One can also identify examples from previous occupants of the White House, such as FDR in the case of World War Two and Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. On the flip side, any President who fails to offer protection in an uncertain world will always appear weak (as in the case of Jimmy Carter and his botched handling of the Iranian hostage crisis).

                The second factor to consider is the stage of the presidential cycle itself. The power and authority of the President is always greater during the early stages of his time in office. However, by the fourth-quarter of the game the President’s power and authority will be in decline. For one, the public may well feel dissatisfied at the gap between capabilities and expectations. Moreover, his authority amongst congressional figures will be limited because he will not be standing again for elected office. A President is more likely to get things done during the early stages, such as during the symbolic first one hundred days of his time in the Oval Office.

                The third dependent factor is the state of the parties on Capitol Hill. Put crudely, it is easier to push forward his agenda during a time of unified government as opposed to divided government. As such, the legislative success rate of any given President will for understandable reasons be higher during a time of unified government. During Obama’s first two years in power, he actually achieved the best legislative success rate since LBJ back in the 1960s. Yet having said this, the President will always need to engage in the dark arts of persuasion in order to ensure that his own congressmen upholds the party line. The aforementioned LBJ was notorious for his arm-twisting abilities; using methods that ranged from outright physical threats to the shameless use of pork-barrel politics.

                Public opinion is another important element to consider. In order to exert power effectively, the President needs to act in a decisive manner whilst avoiding any of the negative connotations Americans have with imperial rule (such as the IRS targeting groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement). This is a difficult balancing act for any occupant of the Oval Office, having to appear strong whilst avoiding any accusation that he is acting in the manner of a King. For obvious reasons, the President is always more sensitive to the wishes of the people in the run-up to an election. By his second-term (particularly after the mid-terms), he is usually more concerned with his legacy than pleasing public opinion. Moreover, he doesn't even need to keep potential donors happy – which again provides greater freedom for maneuver.

                Another factor to consider is the Constitution itself. The President is both empowered and constrained by enumerated powers and implied powers. It must however be noted here that the POTUS has at times been able to evade the limits of the Constitution, particularly when the nation needs a man of action in an uncertain and troubling world. The powers of the President are also shaped by the ever-changing dynamics of international relations. For all our military might, both Iraq and Afghanistan have graphically exposed America’s limitations – just as Vietnam exposed our limitations and by implication the powers of our Head of State during an earlier era.

                Before we leave the whole arena of presidential power; any proper assessment needs to be placed into its proper context. This may include the intentions of the founding fathers, comparable liberal democracies and the distinction between domestic and foreign policy. For instance, it must be noted that the Constitution seeks to limit the power of the President via a system of checks and balances. One could also compare the POTUS with other world leaders, particularly those who are President in a democratic-republican system. However, it is the distinction between the domestic and foreign which casts the most valuable light upon our inquiry. It is undoubtedly the case that the President has greater scope to influence American foreign policy than the domestic sphere. As domestic policy was considered in previous posts, this would seem an opportune moment for the next entry to consider the powers of the President within the field of foreign policy.