Rational Ignorance

The President, in my opinion, is the most important role in the US government. Towards the beginning of the presidency,  the role of the president was more easily defined by the Constitution. But as the political process started to complicate itself (for better or for worse), it became unclear as to who the president should actually represent. Should he represent only his political party? Only the people who voted for him? The electoral college?

Well, in my opinion, the president should represent all the people in America on both domestic and international affairs. When the president travels to another country to sign an international treaty, he should be representing the interests of all the people in America. When he proposes a bill to Congress on a fiscal issue, he should be trying to better the country as a whole. He can't just represent the interest of a certain group (i.e. his own political party), because he needs to have the country prosper as a whole. If he were to act only in the interests of one party, then only about half the country would feel the benefits of his actions at any given time. 

Furthermore, he should be a politico representative by sometimes acting as a trustee and sometimes acting as a delegate. Like in Canes-Wrone and Shotts article, based on the issue at hand, he should be either a trustee or a delegate. In economics, most people are classified as "rationally ignorant" through the political process. This doesn't sound too nice, but it has practical implications in this situation. First, people are ignorant and don't take time to inform themselves about the political situation because it is too costly to them. They have other things to worry about and other things to devote their time to. It would be too costly to them and waste too much of their time to actually learn and inform themselves about ALL political issues. They only need to inform themselves about situations that affect them and when the benefits of being informed outweigh the costs.  So, in a rational sense they are ignorant, because they have better uses of their time. This idea translates perfectly into Canes-Wrone and Shotts article. 

The people are going to be informed about issues that affect them directly. So, policies that they are familiar with that directly affect their everyday lives should be left up to the people to decide. In this situation, the president will use his flexibility as a politico to act as a delegate of the people. The people will be able to make the decision on the policy, perhaps because they are more familiar with the issue. They might be more familiar, because the President is usually distanced from the life of everyday Americans by being in office. Therefore, he should let the people make the decision, because they are more informed and understand the situation better and what needs fixing. On the other hand, the American public will not now as much (if anything at all) about other issues. For example, fiscal and monetary policy or international affairs are much more distanced from the American public. The average American won't be able to understand the implications of foreign policy, because this requires expert analysis (and we don't have the time and resources to inform ourselves about these issues and acquire the expertise needed). So, the president should use his flexibility as a politico to act as a trustee in this situation. He has the knowledge and expertise needed (or i would hope so) in these fields to make the best decision and most informed decision.

In the context of my analysis, the term represent is going to be difficult to define, but i will do my best to help you understand what I consider represent to imply. In this context, represent is going to mean acting in the best interests of ALL Americans. So, based on the situation or policy at hand, he is going to have to always act in the best interests of Americans. If acting in the best interests requires him to understand and seek what the people want done, then he should go out and find what the people want. If acting in the best interests requires him to use his knowledge and expertise and consult other experts, then he should do so. So, to me, represent means utilizing the people who know the situation the best and most directly to make the best possible decision for his constituents. 

With my analysis, the president has the ability to change from being a trustee or delegate based on the situation. So this gives him the flexibility he needs in office to accurately represent the people. The only problem I see arising from this kind of representation is the president's understanding of when to act as a trustee and when to act as a delegate. Some presidents might classify different policies as needing a different type of representation. Or for that matter, some presidents might be more experienced in one area or more familiar with one situation that they think they should act as a trustee as compared to delegate. For example, if a president grew up on a farm and claimed he knew what was in the best interests of farmers because he grew up on a farm, this may be an inaccurate representation. If he acts as a trustee in that situation, he might not accurately represent what the farmers want (even though he thinks he is). The problem is that it is too difficult to define when a policy should be implemented through a trustee representative or through a delegate representative. We just need to leave it up to the American people to step and make sure their voice is heard when it needs to be heard. If a policy affects a certain group, it is going to be up to the people to voice their opinion and make sure they influence the legislation's formation. 

Roosevelt vs. Taft

The role of the president has been ever-changing, since the presidency was crafted up by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution. Furthermore, the role of the president and the powers he should be allowed to exercise have been debated throughout history.

Roosevelt considered himself to be a "Lincoln" president and adopted Lincoln's stewardship theory. Basically, Roosevelt believed that the president can exercise any power he thinks is necessary unless it is explicitly restricted by the Constitution or by an act of Congress. He even said it is in the "...interest of this Government to strengthen and give independence to the Executive..." He feels the exec. should be given the powers to achieve what he wants in office, and it will turn out to be better for the people. On the other hand, Taft believed the president can only exercise powers explicitly given to him by Congress or the Constitution. Taft was worried about an individual president getting too strong in office and it could lead to social injustice. He even advised the people to be against the expansion of presidential powers because it seems like he feared a president with too much power.

Taft's idea of the presidency seems very old school and conservative. The strong points that come out of his view are that it works well with the Constitution and Congress. It is easier to follow. The only powers the president can exercise are those explicitly given to him. It will be easy to identify when the pres. steps out of line and uses unnecessary powers. However, since his powers will be so limited, it would prohibit the exec branch from helping the American people. We need the executive to use his powers effectively. A lot of the powers the pres. uses are informal. The American people trust the president and want him to perform in office. By taking away his informal powers, you would be stripping him of his ability to help the citizens. For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the president the power to look over the economy. However, this is an important role for him. Congress takes too much time to pass legislation that would help improve the state of the economy. So, the president usually tries give the citizens the confidence they need to proceed. He does suggest reforms in Congress (like budget reform), but that is a power granted to him by the Constitution. So, to work effectively I feel the president needs both formal and informal powers.

Roosevelt's idea also has weaknesses. As Taft pointed out, a president without restrictions on the scope of his power can be dangerous. The president can exercise too much power, which eventually would cause social injustice. Allowing the president to get that strong shadows the powers of a monarch more than an executive branch. There is no telling how much power he can obtain in office and what extent he will exercise those powers. Its just a scary thought if the president does get too strong because of his popularity with everyone. However, this theory does allow the president to satisfy the American people. He is going to have the ability to help the American people more directly, and not have to go through the long and excruciating process of passing a bill in Congress. It can make the executive more effective and efficient because he will be able to move quickly. If something wasn't working he can change it and not have to go through Congress's process. So, basically, it will be giving the president a more direct link to his constituents.

In my opinion, Roosevelt's theory could lead to a more effective president and executive branch. By allowing the president to get more power, you can strengthen the effectiveness of the government. To me, Congress is too inneffective because of the lag between the proposal and passing of a bill. By giving the president this power, it doesn't mean he will abuse it. In my opinion, if Roosevelt's theory was used effectively, it wouldn't cause any problems. We should give the president the tools necessary to effectively run government. By giving him all these tools, he will have more resources available to help the American people more quickly. I feel that the president won't unnecessarily exercise these powers. If we give them to him, he should use them only when necessary. If a certain situation calls for an executive order, then he should use one.  The president, when he feels it is necessary, will choose which power or resource to use. It will not only give him the ability to act and respond quickly to the needs of America, but also make him closer to the citizens. If we do give him this all powers except if it is explicitly restricted, we will expect him to use these powers. So, he will have to understand the American people more and actually respond to what we want.

Obviously, critics of this theory are going to say giving the president all this power would be dangerous to our country. However, I would argue this differently. Not only do I trust the president (based on the fact that he is the most publicly looked after person in the country) but also there will still be a system of checks and balances in place. First off, this theory suggests that any power explicitly restricted by Congress should be stripped from the president. So, Congress will have the ability to start to limit these powers once they seem like they are too much of an abuse of power. Not only is there Congress, but more importantly there is the American people. If we allow the president to take all this power, then the American people will always have an eye on the president. Once he steps out of line with his power, the American people will hopefully check that power. The media is going to have extra coverage of the president to keep the people informed on his exercising of powers. So, we will understand what's going on and be able to check his power when he over does it. I believe the American people as a whole are a lot stronger and more influential than the president alone. We need to trust the American people to be able to check the president on his powers when he gets "too strong."

If the country was facing hard economic times, this theory would allow the president to react quickly without going through Congress. American people would be more satisfied, and it will make the country better off. A lot of economists believe that public policy, especially economic policy, can be ineffective because of the time it takes for laws to be passed. By the time the bill is passed and by the time it takes for the bill to be in full effect, the economy has already started to change (for the better or worse) and would need different legislation. Once again, letting the executive act quickly in this situation will help the economy recover more efficiently without the lag that Congress has. In my opinion, my theory doesn't depend on the personal characteristics of a single president. Actually it depends more on the people to keep an eye on presidential power. Even if a president does try to abuse power in office, there is room for the American people and Congress to reform those powers. So, in a perfect hypothetical situation, the American people and Congress will have the ability to check and limit the powers of the president. This lets them adjust the power of presidents based on their hunger for power, their personal characteristics, or  the situation they face. Different situations and different president will call for different restrictions of their powers, which will let the American people and Congress adjust for different political, economic, or socials situations. Some situations already call for extended powers. Like wartime presidents can usually exercise more powers. Hopefully, my idea would work something like that.