Since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there has been an evolution of the presidency. The president has gained many informal powers and must exercise these powers frequently and efficiently to make sure he achieves what he promised to the American people. When watching President Obama's State of the Union address it is obvious that he is and is willing to exercise these informal powers.
In Obama's speech, he tried to steer American people and Congress in the right direction. He explained to the American people, through many specific examples, why we are the best country in the world. He used examples of actual everyday citizens achieving the unimaginable to persuade the American people that we are still the smartest country out there. When he spoke to Congress, he was trying to push his own agenda. Obama wanted Congress to work together, without being bound to party standards, to make sure we can pass effective legislation. He wants to invest in American technology, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, Obama wants to rewrite tax laws, reduce the budget deficit, end the Iraq War and reform government to make it more efficient. He sets goals for the American people domestically and the international community regarding conflicts.
When looking at his speech, he promises and wants a lot of things from the American people, the international community, and Congress. When looking at what he says, the US Constitution does give him formal powers to achieve some of the goals. For example, he is the commander in chief. So, when he spoke about ending the conflict in Iraq, he is exercising a formal power provided to him. When he talks about traveling to "...Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances across the Americas," he is exercising his power to make treaties. Finally, his last formal power he exercised was acutally addressing Congress in a State of the Union. But, when you think about it, those are the only formal powers he exercised in his speech. So where do these other powers come from? How does he plan on reducing the deficit or reinvesting in America? They come from his informal powers
In Kernell's theory of presidential powers, he concurs that the presidency has evolved and given rise to informal powers. The informal power that the theory highlights is "going public." The president needs to go public about the policies he wants to influence the American people to agree with him. Once the people agree, then Congress will be forced to continue with the legislation. Just by the simple fact that he is addressing Congress and Americans through this widely televised speech is an example of going public. He is trying to excite the American people about the new legislation that he will be proposing, so they can force their Congressmen to vote the law into effect. Furthermore, in this State of the Union, he is pressuring Congress directly by going public to the people. He is pushing legislation to restructure the federal budget, but surprisingly says "...and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible." This is way beyond any formal powers vested in the Constitution, but instead he is using his informal power of going public to ensure that the legislation he wants passed does get passed. Even further from his formal powers, he pushes to restructure government and explains " I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote- and we will push to get it passed. That is far beyond his powers, and as Kernell would explain he is threatening the Congress to pass the legislation. He is threatening them with one of his most exercised powers, going public. He plans on Congress passing the bill, but if they don't he is ready to go public with the issue again.
When looking at Neustadt's theory of presidential power, it is apparent that Obama was exercising his informal power to persuade. Throughout the speech, he is explaining what he will be proposing to the Congress. However, he doesn't just say what he is proposing. Instead he explains why he is proposing the legislation and what good will come out of it. For example, he wants to pass legislation to restructure government in a more efficient way. He starts off the topic by explaining inefficiences in contemporary government, by saying "There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy." He explains the situation we are facing right now by revealing to Congress the inefficiences that he noticed. Then he goes on to reassure the American people that we can tackle this problem, becaus we have done so already in other fields. We just need to apply it to government now. Then, finally, he explaisn that he will propose a bill to Congress to restructure government. All the talk leading up to the proposed bill is just him trying to persuade Congress that the bill will work. He explained we have done it before but just not in government. Throughout the speech, he explains the amazing things American have done. In my opinion (and Neustadt will probably agree), this is a form of persuasion directed toward Congress. He wanted to reassure Congress that the American people are still working hard and being very effective and it is just Congress that isn't performing. With the right tools from Congress, America will prosper and he is trying to persuade Congress to give him these tools (legislation).
When have thinking about it, Obama was promising to exercise a lot of formal and informal powers. His informal powers seem to overlap though. As Neustadt woudl explain, he was trying to persuade Congress into passing his proposals. However, it seems to be a combination of both Kernell's theory and Neustadt's theory. In my opinion, Obama tried to not only persuade Congress but also persuade the American people. By persuading the American people, he is in a sense going public. He combines these informal powers to make a stronger statement to Congress and the American people. He is effectively using his powers to pressure Congress to get things done, in my opinion. He has a lot of tools and powers (both formal and informal) at his fingertips and he is willing to use them to do get what he wants done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that even one of the formal, Constitutional powers you mention, Obama's role as Commander in Chief, is dependent on Congress having given the authority to President Bush to invade Iraq, rather than actually declaring war itself.
ReplyDeleteMy position on persuading Congress vs. persuading the people is that at this point, on controversial issues, the public usually has to be persuaded first. With television and the internet, it's much easier for opinion makers to go straight to the people, and for the people to keep up with how their representatives are voting.
Shaun,
ReplyDeleteYou noted that you believe the president "went beyond his powers" in the State of the Union address, but as I've mentioned in a comment on one of our groupmate's blogs, his agenda setting power is recognized constitutionally by the words: "recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient". Although an executive, it is clear that the Framers intended for the president to be involved in the legislative process (think of the veto) and that any harmful ambitions he may have in this area would be effectively checked by the many powers of the Congress.
You mentioned that the president was both persuading the public and Congress with this address. While I agree that some of the language used in relation to what Obama wanted Congress to do seemed to be persuasive, I still feel as if most of this was directed at the public and not truly directed at Congress. Neustadt's theory definitely had threads in this speech, but I believe that Neustadt's theory on persuasion doesn't completely apply to the public realm and rather deals more with how the president persuades Congress not in the public's eye. Therefore, in this speech when Obama directly spoke to Congress, laying out what he would like to accomplish, I think he was in effect showing the public what they should ask Congress to do, which relates to Frank's comment about needing to persuade the public first.
ReplyDelete