Controlling the bureaucracy 

                In order to govern effectively, the POTUS must exert control over the federal bureaucracy. If he does not, then he is unlikely to be effective in his post. Controlling the federal bureaucracy means the President must deal with issues such as iron triangles, the spoils system and clientelism. However, the obvious starting-point here is the presidential campaign itself and the problems it inherently presents.

                During the presidential campaign, it is often necessary for a would-be Head of State to present himself as a Washington outsider harking back to Jefferson’s yeoman farmer. This is a difficult balancing act to pull off, presenting oneself as an outsider and yet having the knowledge and contacts one would associate with a Washington insider. The public have a very low opinion of politicians and the whole political process in the Beltway, and anyone tainted by association can find themselves rejected by the electorate. That said; the President-elect must quickly master the machinations of Washingtonian politics in order to operate effectively. Inevitably, some Presidents have done a much better job of this than others. To his credit, Barack Obama gave key roles to influential insiders such as Joe Biden and Peter Rouse. Obama also had contacts within the upper chamber from his brief stint as Senator for Illinois. In contrast, both Clinton and Carter appointed many of their former supporters. Although reasonably accomplished at governing a southern state, they were often outmaneuvered by vested interests within our nation’s capital. From the Republican side, the case of George W. Bush is a particularly intriguing one to consider. He successfully portrayed himself as a Washington outsider. However, as the son of a former President he had a unique insight into how politics works in Washington DC. He also benefited from contacts developed by his father.

                Regardless of their experience or otherwise of Washington politics, there are several problems that face any Head of State when dealing with the federal bureaucracy. Firstly, he must deal with tensions between various agencies. Frankly, tensions are inevitable when federal agencies become engaged in a form of bureaucratic imperialism. For instance, all Presidents must deal effectively with a potential clash of interests between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During a re-election campaign, one might also consider the tension between the White House staff and the campaign staff (Popkin, 2012).

                The President must also deal with the issue of parochialism. In any bureaucracy, there is a notable tendency for agencies to consider their own interests above those of the administration itself. Thirdly, those who work for federal agencies may have little real interest in how their decisions affect people. In doing so, the President might be adversely affected by this lack of empathy from those in the federal bureaucracy. At the very least, it reflects badly upon the Head of State. In addition, there is the problem of incrementalism within any executive branch of government. One might also consider the problem of government waste. Due to the absence of a profit motive, federal agencies might squander taxpayer’s money. Finally, federal agencies may fall fowl to regulatory capture. Powerful interests can exert considerable influence over politicians working for the federal government, and all Presidents must be wary of that.

                The existence of iron triangles presents two further problems for the President. Firstly, an iron triangle may well influence the political agenda in a manner contrary to the wishes of the President. For any dedicated politico of Washington DC, it is widely known that social security is called the ‘third rail’ of American politics. Any President who seeks to reform it may receive a nasty political shock from those with a vested interest in the status quo. Pressure groups such as the AARP and members of the House Committee on Aging/the Social Security Administration may well engage in a misinformation campaign against reforms implemented by the executive branch of government.

                 The second problem derives from the ability of an iron triangle to distort the spending priorities of the federal government. There is no better illustration of this point than the military. At the time of writing, the US government spends more on the military than all other developed countries put together and the military-industrial complex is arguably the most important iron triangle of all. Naturally, the existence of iron triangles may also present an opportunity of sorts for the President. For example, it may well provide a useful photo-opportunity or secure support from a key demographic. Pressure groups within the iron triangle may also endorse the President based on his particular ideological or policy stance. At the very least, they may well campaign against his opponent if they feel their interests would be threatened in some way. Frankly, few things in political life are a case of black or white. To be a scholar of politics is to be comfortable with shades of grey.

                The spoils system refers to the expression ‘to the winner go the spoils.’ In the American system, the winner of the presidential election appoints civil servants on the basis of party affiliation. There is no tradition of civil service neutrality within the states. As such, powers of patronage are conferred upon the President-elect. This also applies to a wide range of appointments to the executive and judicial branch, provided he listens to advice given by the Senate and secures their approval for said nomination.

                Although the spoils system facilitates patronage powers, the President may well be undermined to some degree by the actions of those appointed by him. A bad appointment will always reflect poorly upon his political acumen. This is most evident in the case of a nomination to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush experienced a humiliating defeat when Harriet Miers failed to secure support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. What made the defeat all the more exasperating was that it was inflicted by members of the Republican Party. As with other sources of power, the President must use it wisely in order to govern effectively.

                The final issue to consider in this particular section is clientelism. In the context of the executive branch, the President may well secure the support of influential figures via the potential for a reward of some kind (such as a powerful post). Clientelism reflects the patron-client relationship that lies at the very center of how politics really works; and bares obvious relevance towards an understanding of pressure groups.

                When he enters the White House, the President has already built up a level of political debt. Those who supported him on the campaign trail will expect to be rewarded in some manner. This may include a seat in the Cabinet for wealthy donors. It may also entail favorable legislation of some kind, or the provision of a tax-break. The President must be careful not to seem beholden to powerful interests; although quite frankly there are no clean hands given the extent to which money dominates the political process. Moreover, those who backed the President may simply want recognition in some way. A ‘word in the right ear’ from the President (particularly during his so-called honeymoon period) can open up many doors. Naturally, the accumulation of political debt continues throughout his administration – particularly as a result of his re-election. To make matters even harder, he must be careful to avoid any comeback from disgruntled supporters.

                As with all facets of political life, the provision of a reward may well backfire in some way. Take the case of ‘pardongate’ under Bill Clinton. The already discredited President heaped further damage upon his legacy by pardoning a convicted felon who had raised considerable funds for the Clintons. On the basis of clientelism, it seemed that Clinton was rewarding Mark Rich for his previous work in raising funds. It remains to be seen if this episode reappears during Hilary's bid for the White House in 2016. Thus far, it seems to have been overshadowed by her use of a private email server and her actions over Benghazi.

 

                In summary, all Presidents will face difficulties in exerting control over the federal bureaucracy. The academic Hugh Heclo is right to point out that bureaucracies will always impede the President, regardless of his overall strategy and governing style. However, the President is at least assisted by the fact that civil servants are party appointments. Equally, the President can always be undermined by his appointments and by how he attempts to reward others. He may also be subject to valuable members of the executive branch leaving for more rewarding pastures (as in the case of Rahm Emanuel who left the Obama administration to stand for Mayor of Chicago). Ultimately, the President is only really as effective as those around him.