2nd May 1999

(5,746 words)

"All members of the Washington Community are compelled to watch the President for reasons not of pleasure but vocation. They need him in their business just as he needs them" [Neustadt] Discuss.

"Members of Congress and of his Administration, military commanders in the field, leading politicians in both parties, representatives of private organisations, newsmen of assorted types and sizes, foreign diplomats (and principals abroad) - all these are "Washingtonians" no matter what their physical location." To make this list complete, I might tentatively insert the judiciary. The important point to realise is that 'Washingtonians', the 'Washington community', is not to be limited to those inside the Beltway. The importance of the decisions of the United States federal government will affect those in Washington DC, Washington State and Washington, Tyne and Wear. There are linkages between those representing each of these areas and the federal executive, the President.

When looking at the quote in the question, it is easy to simply nod approvingly. 'Yes' "They [Washingtonians] need him [the President] in their business" and undoubtedly, 'yes' "he [the President] needs them". The separation of powers that is the pride of the US constitution is more complicated that mere allocation of areas of authority. Instead, as Neustadt nicely terms it, it is a case of "separate institutions sharing powers" . This sharing is the essence of the point that Neustadt is making. The constitution (and evolved conventions) mean that power in any field is not concentrated in the hands of one institution. In order to exert their authority, each institution must therefore have each other involved 'in their business'. This can be equally said of those mentioned as 'Washingtonians' who are not given formal powers by the constitution. These include the press (often referred to as the 'fourth branch' of government), interest groups and foreign governments.

After the voters of Bristol elected Edmund Burke to Parliament he said, "... he [referring to himself] is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament." The distinction that Burke was trying to make was that although he was elected by Bristol, he felt his mandate and duty was to serve the interests of the entire United Kingdom. The purpose of looking at Burke is to highlight something which I believe is central to the understanding of the United States presidency. Regardless of whether Burke believed otherwise, he was elected to serve the constituents of Bristol and only they could hold him accountable. This can be said too of every elected official in the United States except two, the President and the Vice-President. Even the indirect procedures of electoral colleges cannot disguise the fact that only in the presidency is there an electoral mandate from voters across the whole country . Regardless of whether claiming such a mandate is justified (see footnote), it must be of central importance to how a President perceives himself and how others view him. This is therefore an ace that a president can use in any negotiations.

The job description of a president is vast. Firstly, there are the constitutionally prescribed roles as Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief and 'chief diplomat'. In addition, there is also a list of assumed roles. These include being Head of State, chief legislator, party leader, 'leader of the free world' and with the advent of the era of the 'permanent campaign', political candidate. Not only is the President expected to press the nuclear button, but also greet other Heads of States; hire and fire executive officers; sign treaties and since the Budget Act of 1921 he is also expected to present Congress with a budget. All this whilst having an eye on the re-election polls. It is little wonder both that Presidents have been accused of specialising (such as Nixon towards foreign policy) or that the quote in the question is so true. The President is involved in everybody's business because the bread and depth of 'his business' necessarily results in overlaps.

In order to see the practical implications of Neustadt's suggestion, it is useful to look at the relationships surrounding a specific a president. To do this, I have chosen Jimmy Carter, the United State's thirty-ninth president. Before applying the Carter example to the question, it is useful to note a few points about his presidency.

Jones highlights two key characteristics of the Carter presidency. The first of these is Carter's 'trusteeship' approach towards carrying out his duties. This relates clearly back to the implications of Burke. He felt that his role was to do what was best for the United States, rather than to simply represent the sum of all interests. Carter wished to disassociate himself from the 'politics' of governing.

The second important feature is that unlike many of those that went before him, Carter was a Washington outsider. Although he had political experience (as a Senator and Governor in Georgia), he had not worked in the federal government. This was, perhaps, one of the reasons why he was able to gain office. Carter came to power in the first presidential election of the post-Watergate era. The voters saw him as untainted by the goings on in Washington. The other side to this coin, however, meant that he was also inexperienced of working within it.

In order to look at presidential relationships with the 'Washington community' (using President Carter as the primary example) it is worthwhile to break the analysis down. This is between where "[t]hey [Washingtonians] need him in their business" and where "he needs them [in his]".

"They need him in their business"

Before looking at the various institutions, one further distinction is useful to make. This is the difference between the man and the office, the president and the presidency. The size of the bureaucracy that is involved in the institution of the presidency, the White House, means that is often quite distinct from the president. Considering the vast array of roles expected of a president this is unsurprising. I believe that the quote in the question is wishing to imply that Washingtonians watch both the workings and successes of the presidency as well as those of the president.

Congress.

There is no constitutional demand for the president to act as 'chief legislator'. His constitutional involvement seems limited to using the State of Union address to, "recommend to the Congressmen's consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" . He also has the possibility of using his veto. The expectation for a president to take the legislative lead can therefore be seen as something that has developed, particularly after the precedents set by Franklin Roosevelt. As stated above, following legislation in 1921 the President is expected to present Congress with a budget, in addition to this he is now assumed to put forward a legislative agenda.

The reason for this seems rooted somewhat in the lack of cohesion within Congress. The singularity of the presidency contrasts with the array of possible loci of leadership in each of the chambers of Congress. This allows the White House a better chance of being able to produce a clear legislative agenda which is in the interests of all of the United States, which is after all the president's electoral constituency. As Newt Gingrich tried to prove, a legislative agenda does have the possibility of being able to come from the congressional leadership and of course committees are also capable of formulating legislation. There is, however, a general trend of the president proposing legislation for Congress to refine.

The Carter Administration was no exception to this rule, suggesting a great deal of proposals for Congress. Interestingly, Carter tried to introduce measures that Congress would be naturally hostile towards. His attempts to change the rules for allocation of funding for water projects cut was potentially extremely damaging for some members of Congress. The ability to use the allocation of such projects for strategic political purposes was seen as important in the resources that members of Congress had at their disposal. The ability of Carter to drastically cut the amount of such projects must be seen as a considerable achievement. More importantly (for this question) this shows a clear example of a president being involved in Congress's business when they might not expect (or want) him to do so.

The ability of a president to use his veto can also give him powers in the legislature that legislators must be wary of. As a tool in negotiation a president must be able to convince legislators both that he is willing to use this power and what demands he expects for him not to be used. In order to be strong in such negotiations it is vital therefore for Congressional leaders to be knowledgeable of the likely strength of a president. This does seem to highlight the need for 'watching for vocation'.

Coupled to his legislative place is the role of the President as party leader. Regardless of whether members of Congress support a president, if he is of their party, he will inevitably been perceived as their national leader. As such, it is important to watch the president as it can be assumed that his successes and failures will be reflected onto them. To take an extreme example, much of the blame for the electoral failure of the GOP in the ninety-fourth congressional elections was directed towards the Nixon administration. It is necessary for members to try to influence the president if they believe that his actions (because of his association as assumed party leader) are harming their own interests. This being said, analysis of the 1978 congressional mid-terms suggested that President Carter's actions had little impact on the election results.

The Executive.

There is of course little question that the executive needs the president in their business, in many ways the executive is his business. Nevertheless, this relationship still does require exploring. Within 'the executive' is the distinction between what can be seen as that part of the executive that can be labelled 'the presidency' and that which descends from the cabinet into various governmental departments. This distinction is clearly made by the White House, with current White House Agencies including the National Economic Council and the Council for Environmental Quality being deliberately separate from Cabinet departments, such as the Department of Commerce or the Department of Energy.

Looking at the specific White House branch of the executive shows incredible dependence on the president. In the eleven weeks between a new President gaining election and moving into Pennsylvania Avenue he must create a White House. He has complete discretion as to the staffing, organisational structure and routine of the White House; his White House. Whilst it is true that there are some limitations to this (both Howard Kurtz and George Stephanopoulos mention the ramifications of a decision to close a White House door (and so access) between the press and communications office) , but such problems are limited. There are some features which remain constant, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but there is great scope given to a president to form this institution around him. For this reason these are possibly the Washingtonians with the greatest need to keep a watch on him personally.

It is not only their jobs for which they depend, but he also offers a lead and is an unquestioned source of power. Within the institution access to the man himself is of vital importance. It is easy to overlook, but for members of this machine, it is this access which is a sign of success rather than salary or job title. Stephanopoulos vividly describes his movement of office after being replaced as communications director.

"The room was a study in small ... from the spindly table ... to the squat club chair planted by the door. That door was the best. With its peephole peering directly into the president's private dinning room, it meant that I was connected and protected. When it comes to White House offices, it's not the size that counts. Location, location, location. Proximity ... is a source and sign of power. The closer you are to the president, the more people believe he listens to you, the more information flows your way. The more information flows your way, the more the president listens to you, the more power you have." [George Stephanopoulos, All Too Human (Random House, 1999), 154]

This does not mean that there is no internal politics to the White House or that the president is free to do completely as he wishes. The point is twofold. The White House machine needs the president for its survival and in order to put forward their agenda, members of that machine need the president's backing. There can be opposition to the president within the institution, but unless it is able to use persuade a president towards its cause, it is largely toothless.

The second part of the executive to look at are the governmental departments. Again, the top personnel require the president for their appointments. Although the cabinet is quite distinct to its cousin in Whitehall, the president is also expected to give some lead in policy proposals. Cabinet secretaries must be aware of his concerns. In addition to this, in order to gain legislation relating to their speciality, departments can be seen as requiring the use of the presidency's role as 'chief legislator'. The exception to this is in cases where there is seen to be 'iron-triangles' present between Congressional committees, Executive departments and relevant interest groups. There is relative permanence of these three groups compared to a president who is confined to a maximum of eight years. This triangle can therefore be embedded and hard for a president to break. These relationships will be discussed again later. The importance, also, of the comparative permanence of much of departmental staff compared to White House staff means that they are less dependent on the President. Instead their work centres around a cabinet secretary who is accountable to the president and from whom they will be fed the president's agenda.

Interest Groups.

It is clear that various interest and lobbying groups are heavily interested in the workings of the president. As has been suggested, the president is vital in setting policy agendas and making legislative proposals. The advent of a new administration or a policy change by an incumbent will necessarily affect these groups. Those to whom a president is sympathetic will expect to have greater access to the executive and so greater chance of success in their cause.

Jones makes it clear that in the Carter administration employed the Office of Public Liaison to encourage interest groups in the process of policy development during negotiations with Congress over the Panama Canal Treaty. Being able to be the favoured group to gain such access must be the main aim of lobbyists in DC, coupled to media coverage and lobbying of Congress.

The Media.

To ask why the Washington press corps need a president is to ask why a fish needs water. The president is the story in the capital. The icon of the president as one person symbolising the vast complexities of the federal government is irresistible to the press. Analysis of the amount of time given to the presidency compared to Congress in the media highlights this strikingly . The variety of leaders, opinions and agendas in Congress is not suited to the black and white requirements of modern media.

One man, with a single agenda which can be more easily analysed, dissected and debated by pundits than the array of ideas in other institutions. This is not to say that media coverage of the president is simply because of lazy journalism. The central point of this essay is that the president is important in almost every aspect of Washington life, so is central to all of US government.

The demand of viewers (with increasingly short attention spans) for crispness in issues is supplied by the presidency. What is more, he supplies soap opera and celebrity. He may have a wife, a child, an interesting background, a long lost bother or even an intern. People can relate to the person that is the president. If a movie star's marriage can sell a gossip magazine, it would be a poor show if the most powerful man in the world's couldn't.

Personally too, journalists have a lot to be reliant on a president for. A journalist who has contacts within the White House will be more valued by their organisation. Careers can be made in such a way. A reporter who is assigned to a candidate in an early primary will develop a close contact, there will be little competition for the attention of the principals. If the candidate seven months later becomes president, the reporter could be elevated to 'White House correspondent'. The fight for the scoop, the slightest hint of information from the White House makes reporters highly dependent. The lure of having Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman next to your name at the end of a Hollywood movie must set every hack's heart racing that little bit faster. As will be discussed later, this is not a one way relationship.

International leaders.

Because Neustadt mentions "foreign diplomats (and principals abroad)", I feel that they cannot be ignored. It is clear that as 'leader of the free world' (and since the collapse of the USSR possibly 'leader of the world') the US president has an important influence on them. In fact, the area of foreign policy is one in which a president is particularly free of the checks of other branches. Following the War Power Resolution of 1973, there is a suggestion that he should consult Congress whenever 'possible' before committing troops. Nevertheless, his recognised role as Commander-in-Chief does give him great authority.

This makes the presidency a key institution for international leaders to deal with. The considerable arsenal that he controls also makes him an undoubted world leader. This is clear even in cases of foreign policy that involve collective action groups. The UN in the Korean and Gulf Wars and NATO currently in Kosovo typify this. The ability of presidential decisions leading world action makes him vital to watch.

In addition to this is the respect given to the president as a diplomat even when there is no threat of US military action. The success of Jimmy Carter in hosting the Arab-Israeli negotiations that led to the Camp David Accord is testament to this point. His stature as president of the United States was a catalyst for such activity.

The Judiciary.

I mention the judiciary, not because Neustadt made an important omission, but simply that it must be recognised as part of the scheme of 'separate institutions sharing powers'. It is clear that the ability that a president has of being 'in the business' of the judiciary is limited. The constitution greatly shields judges and the armoury that a president might have to influence others is somewhat blunt on a group so permanent. This does not mean that a judiciary can ever be ignorant of the political situation. The strongest example of this was in the 1930's when a conservative Supreme Court bench was ruling on the constitutionality of FDR's New Deal proposals. Their defiance of the rulings of the elected government almost led to a constitutional crisis. In reaction to this, FDR made it clear that he would try and pass through Congress, legislation to create more judges, and so pack the bench. The result was the 'switch-in-time-that-saved-nine', with the judges yielding to Presidential pressure.

The formal powers that a president has over this branch is that of appointment. This is, however, limited to when vacancies arise. Such appointments will change the emphasis of the overall judiciary, but do not necessarily mean that it will cause changes in the actions of incumbents.

Looking at each of these members of the 'Washington community' highlights how vast the scope the powers of the president and presidency are on other actors. The singularity of the agenda of the presidential institution and the nation mandate must be seen as being key to this influence. The question must now be flipped to ask how it is that a president's ability to go about his business and exercise his various roles is dependent on the 'Washington Community'.

"... just as he needs them."

Even an electoral mandate does not give a person the ability to govern a country. He might have the constitutional entitlement to govern the country, but the words of the constitution are just words. A president is simply a man, a presidency, however, is a governmental institution. The bureaucracy that makes up the White House must therefore be seen as the first members of the Washington community who the president requires.

Even the White House, however, is limited to policy creation rather than implementation. It doesn't have the resources to carry out the will of its head. This means that to function as an executive, the White House is dependent on the cabinet secretaries and more importantly, the departments that they lead (as well as agencies such as the armed services). Also, the executive cannot function without money. This means the president is dependent on Congress to raise and allocate funds. In addition, the role of the presidency in setting a legislative agenda makes him dependent on the legislature to pass his bills.

In the formulation of policy, an administration is also dependent on the expertise of interest groups and is interested in the votes that interests might represent. As a politician and party leader, a president is also dependent on the press as a link to the people, the voters.

This brief synopsis hints at the various ways that a president is dependent on the 'Washington community'. When looking at these in turn there must be an understanding of presidential power being Neustadt's 'power to persuade'. It must be noted both what makes this power greater as well as what limits it.

The Executive.

The chapter in which Neustadt discusses President Carter is entitled 'Hazards of Transition'. The 'transition' is referring to the period in which the new administration planned and created their presidency. The particular problems that Carter faced, excluding factors such as those surrounding Bert Lance, were due to the White House that this 'outsider' created. This does not mean that his White House did not obey orders , but that its failures in carrying out tasks impeded his ability to do his job.

Again, this essay is about the complex institutional overlaps that occur in Washington. In order to be successful within such a system, you have to understand the rules. This does not mean the constitutional rules, but instead the rules as to how the town functions, how federal government operates. As Governor of Georgia, Carter did not have the personal knowledge, so he would be dependent on others. The criticism that Neustadt puts to Carter is that he failed to surround himself with people who did have the required experience and knowledge. He suggests that during the time of transition, Carter spent too much time planning from Plains, Georgia instead of gaining a feel for Washington. It must be noted more generally that an election (especially when there is no incumbent) is a test of electioneering not necessarily a test of ability to govern in Washington.

This factor did handicap the presidency in being able to exert its control over other institutions. Those presidents with Washington experience, such as Johnson in Congress or Bush in the CIA and then the vice-presidency typify this. Washington 'insiders' not only carry knowledge, but other 'Washingtonians' already know about them. The professional reputations, which Neustadt puts as central to the 'power to persuade' can be built partly before gaining office with experience in the Capital. For this reason, an executive that is alien would need to work harder to gain the full potential of influence available to a president.

Carter campaigned on the fact that he was an outsider, but as Neustadt notes, " [To Washingtonians] 'Jimmy who?' was [often] followed by "who cares?'." This is not the strongest bargaining position to come from.

When looking at the departments that also make up the executive it is also possible to see how being an outsider could be a disadvantage. The 'iron' or 'cosy triangles' that ignore presidential input are even harder to break for an outsider. In addition to this, it must be noted that presidents are often dependent on departments for information. A greater understanding of workings of such institutions allow more presidential control.

Congress.

As was suggested above, there are no constitutional powers for a president to pass legislation of his own. In the State of the Union address, he is able to suggest legislation, but he has no formal powers to implement them. What a president does have is an incredibly powerful bargaining tool, the veto.

Some commentators believe that presidents can be judged by simply seeing the proportion of their legislative agenda that is passed. To do this would be crass as it ignores the complex bargaining that is involved in the passage of legislation. Instead, the relationship can be seen as two institutions heavily dependent on one another. In addition, there are various features which will affect how a president is able to make a Congress do as he wants. These include which party has a Congressional majority; what the size of that majority is; how strong Congressional leadership is and how great a majority (and so an electoral mandate) a president has. This last point is important in the case of Carter, especially due to his attempts to establish a trusteeship presidency. The basis of governing in this way must be the electoral mandate. You are governing for the 'good of the country' because this is your electorate. Unfortunately, Carter only gained 51.1% of the vote and 55.2% of the electoral college vote. This is hardly a clear mandate and so a weak bargaining position; "Jimmy who? ... who cares?".

The essence of the president's persuasion is that he must be able to offer something in return for his support. The power of the veto is limited if used too frequently. For this reason a president who is trusted to deliver on his promises will be stronger. This again is linked to professional reputation. Public prestige also allows strength as Congressmen fight to gain some of the reflected glory of a successful president. It is certainly an asset to have a photo of you with a popular president over your desk to your perception at home.

The difference between the two chambers of Congress must also be noted as a president will have to work with them in different ways. This is highlighted by Jones when discussing Carter's energy proposals, "Speaker O'Neill was determined to demonstrate to the president that he could deliver; Senator Byrd [Senate Majority Leader] was just as determined to permit the Senate to work its will."

The Media.

When looking at the press above it was clear that they have a great deal to gain from the presidency. In the post-Watergate era they see themselves as responsible for investigating the excesses of the president. Stephanopoulos, when discussing the press feeding frenzy after it was revealed that the White House hadn't released requested documents to an investigative team (due to, as he saw it an administrative error, rather than deliberate deception), suggested that, "All presidents are Nixon until proven innocent".

Working with the press is necessary not because they have a legitimate right to investigate the press, but instead because they are a vital connection to the public, the voters. It must be seen as a trade-off, the advantages of advertising (political publicity) balanced by the effects of bad publicity. This is coupled to the fact that if you avoid them, they are more than capable of talking about you, probably in the negative.

The importance of public opinion to a modern presidency cannot be ignored. Even a second term president must be aware of the implication of the polls. He is not the only one who seeks election, so again, if he is popular he is better able to persuade people to join him in his popularity by supporting his agenda. This is perhaps typified in importance that the Clinton administration placed upon Dick Morris before he was forced to resign after embarrassing sexual revelations . It was suggested that even military decisions were first poll tested by Morris.

The press is vital in forming public opinion because unless a matter directly affects them (such as the opening of a works project in their town), they have no other way of finding out what a president is doing. The press allows people to understand the issues in politics and gives them access to those who make it, those who rely on their votes. Not only must a president us the media sell his agenda, he must also rebut criticisms. The need for a large communications department highlights this as the publics views must be shaped greatly by what they read, see and hear in the various media.

When an administration is conscious of its relationship with the press, it is therefore not a matter of ego, but instead necessity in order to utilise the power that the press potentially holds.

Interest groups.

Interest groups have various functions for an administration. They have various resources and so should be included in the decision making process. Three obvious resources that they can offer a president are, money, votes and expertise.

Elections are expensive. As party leader, not only is there some pressure for a president to raise funds for himself, but also to be able to encourage donors to give funds to his party. This is now done through political action committees (PACs) during elections and are vital to political survival. It is not being overly cynical to suggest that groups that help finance a president or party might want something in return. For this reason a president must keep groups informed of decisions that will affect them and perhaps negotiate with them or involve them in consultation.

Much the same argument can be said of those groups which have large followings. For example, the backing that the Reverend Jesse Jackson has as leader of the Rainbow/PUSH coalition means that he is a force in Washington. Many suggested that his electioneering was essential in bringing out the black vote that allowed the Democratic party some gains in the 1998 mid-term elections. Such power can be utilised by a president by including such leaders in the workings of their administrations.

The third resource that interest groups often have is expertise. The resources of government mean that sometimes it is necessary to rely on the information supplied by groups with particular specialities and the funds to research them. An example of this could be inviting a university research head into policy consultations for his information. This perhaps reduces the need for a larger White House budget.

International leaders.

Although I suggested above that the strength of the US means that it is able to take the lead in international relations, this does not entail that it always acts unilaterally. The US often needs the support of its allies in conflicts, if not for armour, for credibility and legitimisation. For this reason a president must try and form strong relations with other world leaders.

Just as Congressmen might wish to have their photographs taken with a successful president, so a president is advantaged by mixing in the company of successful world leaders, especially those who are related to US voters, such as the Pope or Israeli delegates. Being a statesman puts a president above domestic politics and to do this co-operation of other world leaders is useful. It is hard to forget the painful look on Tony Blair's face as he stood by President Clinton in a news conference who's emphasis was not international relations, but instead 'sexual relations'.

It is clear also that those presidents who wish to leave a legacy can be expected to turn to foreign matters when frustrated domestically. Nixon was described by some as being more of a member of the State Department than of the White House. This could be seen to be the case indeed with Carter, although his second major international legacy (after Camp David) was not of his making when hostages were taken in Iran.

The Judiciary.

There have been few benches who have dared to greatly affect a presidency and so presidential dependence on them is extremely limited. There are the powers of judicial review (following Marbury vs. Madison 1803), but at a federal level these have proved limited in number (although powerful in impact as the civil rights decisions showed).

The post-Watergate powers of the judiciary, in particular the special prosecutor statute have, however, proved their power against President Clinton. Because there is little a president can do to avoid such problems (except staying on the right side of the law), it is questionable as to how much it could be said that he 'needs them in his business', so they do not deserve further discussion.

Conclusion

All of the above simply goes to prove that Neustadt is right. The sharing of constitutional powers and the benefits of dealing with other members of the 'Washington community' mean that it is vital for the president to be involved in all their business and vice-versa. In fact the authority and strength that a president has with one member of the community can be dependent on relations with other members.

This all points to the need for a president to understand the workings of Washington in order to exploit all the potential sources of power that the office of the presidency holds. This is perhaps why Carter, the 'outsider', was unable to break into these webs and exert himself as strongly as other presidents were able and why Neustadt puts so much emphasis on the mistakes he made in building his White House during the transition.

The importance of the mandate, or at least the fact that a president's electoral constituency (and so accountability) is to the whole nation must be seen as central. In the areas where a president does not have prescribed authority, and so must use his 'power to persuade' this gives him a strong base, regardless of the specifics of his professional reputation or personal prestige.