QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON AMERICAN POLITICS

Questions and Answers About American Politics

Political scientist Stephen J. Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., answers a wide range of questions about the American political system. A specialist on the presidency, Wayne addresses the question of who was the most popular American president in the 20th century and did his popularity have anything to do with his effectiveness? Wayne also discusses the relationship between the presidency and Congress, and outlines what conditions are usually required for a president to work harmoniously with Congress. In addition, Wayne ponders the significance of the election of a woman as president.

Questions and Answers About American Politics

Q: Why do so few Americans vote in national elections?

A: Only about 50 percent of American voters cast ballots in presidential elections and less than 40 percent do so in congressional elections. Some people argue that state registration procedures discourage voting; some believe that holding the election on a weekday when most people are working discourages it. However, public cynicism and apathy seem to be the principal culprits. A lot of people apparently believe that it will make no difference in their lives who wins the election, that their one vote doesn't matter, and that all politicians are the same. Complacency tends also to be greater in good times, when people are satisfied, than in bad times, when they are hurting, unhappy, or just plain mad.

Q: Why do candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties often take similar stands on so many issues?

A: The Republican and Democratic parties are broad-based, mainstream parties. They have maintained their longevity and dominance in American politics by taking positions within the mainstream of public opinion. And the American public as a whole tends to be politically moderate, not ideological or extreme. When the parties have nominated ideological candidates for president—such as Republican Barry M. Goldwater in 1964 and Democrat George McGovern in 1972—they have not done as well as when they have nominated mainstream candidates. One exception was Republican Ronald W. Reagan, who was elected president in 1980 despite his strong ideological views, not because of them.

Q: What does a president do in his capacity as chief executive?

A: As chief executive of the United States government, a president oversees the execution of the laws Congress enacts. In this role, presidents preside over the executive branch of government. They nominate—and with the advice and consent of the Senate—appoint the top political officials who serve in the executive branch. These officials include the secretaries of the 14 departments and their deputies and assistants, as well as the administrators of the executive agencies, such as the Social Security Administration.

Presidents can issue executive orders to their subordinates to perform certain ministerial jobs in a certain way. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued an order to forbid federal officials who worked at federally funded clinics to discuss abortion. President Bill Clinton repealed that order. In 2000 Clinton issued an executive order to all executive branch officials prohibiting them from discriminating against a person in hiring or promotion because of that person's sexual orientation. Executive orders have the force of law, but they can be overturned by an act of Congress or rescinded by presidents.

Q: What can a president do as commander in chief?

A: As commander in chief, the United States president is the civilian head of the military. Toward the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman gave the order to drop the atomic bomb. The president can issue orders to U.S. armed forces, such as the 1990 order George Bush gave to deploy American military in the Persian Gulf and, later, to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. During the 1999 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo, President Clinton indicated which targets were permissible for U.S. forces and which were not.

Q: How is policy coordinated in the executive branch of the United States government? Who coordinates it?

A: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) coordinates most administration policy through its three major processes: budgetary review, legislative clearance, and regulatory review. In this capacity the OMB acts as the president’s surrogate, his executive branch facilitators, and the “cops” who make sure that the administration speaks with a single voice: the president’s.

The budgetary review process in the executive branch occurs over a nine-month period beginning in late April or early May and continuing until the president’s budget is finished and presented to Congress by the first Monday in February for the fiscal year that begins on October 1 of the same year. The departments are given guidelines and are expected to formulate their budgets in terms of these guidelines. The OMB reviews their formulation and makes decisions. There is a short period for appeals to the president and then the budget is finalized.

In legislative review, the executive departments and agencies must submit certain things to the OMB for approval prior to the time they send this material to Congress. This material includes positions they wish to take on pending legislation, prepared testimony they have been invited to give to Congress, and any legislative proposals that they would like to see enacted into law. The OMB coordinates and controls the final product, although there may be give-and-take between the departments, agencies, and the OMB. But as the president’s surrogate, the OMB has the last word. People in the OMB work closely with the policy people in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). The top OMB officials are housed in the same building—often on the same floor—as the policy staff. The top OMB people are political appointees; the analysts are civil servants.

Regulatory review is a process that began in the Reagan administration, whereby departments and executive agencies are required to submit any major regulations they wish to put forth to the OMB prior to the official announcement of the regulation in the Federal Register. The OMB then determines whether the proposed regulations are necessary, cost-effective, and consistent with the president's program. No major regulation can be issued unless it meets these three criteria as determined by the OMB.

Q: Why is the electoral college, rather than direct popular election, used to elect U.S. presidents?

A: The electoral college was designed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as an indirect method of presidential selection. The framers did not have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the common people to make such a decision. The framers believed that electors—who probably would be better educated than average citizens—would make independent judgments, choosing candidates who were the most qualified, not necessarily the most popular. Once the political party system developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, electors became agents of their parties. Their votes reflected their partisan loyalties, not their own considered judgment.

Q: What is the difference between the White House and the Executive Office of the President?

A: The White House is one of 12 offices and two residences—the president's and vice president's—in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). The EOP was established in 1939 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In addition to the White House office, there is the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has about 550 people. It is the largest EOP office and one of the most important. Most of the people in the OMB are civil servants. They help prepare the budget, coordinate legislation, oversee management activities, and review department and agency regulations before they are issued.

Other EOP offices include the three policy councils: domestic, economic, and national security. Also in the EOP offices are the president's science adviser, the office of the United States trade representative, the office of drug policy and prevention of abuse, the vice president's staff, the council on environmental quality, and the office of administration.

Approximately 1,700 people work in the EOP. The most important officials who do not have White House offices are situated in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House and the newer OMB building on 17th Street in Washington, D.C.

Q: How well did Franklin Delano Roosevelt prepare Harry Truman for the presidency?

A: FDR did little to prepare Truman for the presidency. As a compromise choice for vice president at the 1944 Democratic convention, Truman had virtually no executive experience except running a haberdashery that went bankrupt. Prior to being vice president, he had been a senator from Missouri.

In fact, after he was sworn in as vice president, Truman never had a one-on-one meeting with President Roosevelt, although he did attend several sessions with others. He was even unaware of the development of the atomic bomb at the time he became president.

Ironically, Truman in turn did little to prepare his own vice president, Alban Barkley of Kentucky, for the job should something have happened to Truman. Eisenhower was the first to involve his vice president, Richard Nixon, in the policy-making circles of the Eisenhower White House. But even Nixon did not have an office in the West Wing of the White House. His office was across the street.

Q: What are the different roles first ladies have assumed?

A: First ladies have assumed three roles: social hostess, social and educational spokeswoman, and policy adviser and advocate. The first role, both social and ceremonial, is the oldest and the one that every first lady has performed since Martha Washington. It involves greeting and meeting guests at official functions at the White House, such as state dinners; accompanying the president on international and national visits; and taking part in the social and ceremonial activities that are part of the trip. The social hostess role also involves exercising some influence over the decor and management of the White House.

The second role—that of spokeswoman for good causes—began with Lou Henry Hoover, wife of Herbert Hoover. She was an advocate for the Red Cross. Jackie Kennedy was instrumental in the renovation of Lafayette Park across from the White House and in the emphasis she placed on cultural and international activities. Lady Bird Johnson had a beautification program. Betty Ford spoke out on women's issues and later on drug rehabilitation. Rosalyn Carter was concerned with mental health and its treatment, and Nancy Reagan advocated a “Just Say No” policy on drugs. Barbara Bush was concerned with literacy. Hillary Rodham Clinton focused on issues of family values and human rights.

One of three first ladies who were involved with policy matters was Edith Wilson, after her husband was incapacitated with a stroke in 1919. It is alleged that Mrs. Wilson made decisions for the president and put his signature on official documents. Eleanor Roosevelt influenced her husband on issues of health, civil rights, and women: It was through her pressures that President Roosevelt appointed the first woman to the Cabinet. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first spouse to be given an office in the West Wing of the White House, was involved behind the scenes on a variety of issues. She took a very public role in her support of the president's health-care reform of which she was the principal adviser and policymaker.

Q: What do former presidents do? Do they have to work or do they get a pension?

A: Former presidents can do almost anything they want. When Richard Nixon left the White House, he wrote books on foreign policy. Gerald Ford played golf, joined corporate boards, and made speeches—frequently for large fees. Jimmy Carter built up his presidential library, particularly its humanitarian fund. He has been active in a variety of charitable causes and has acted as an international mediator. Ronald Reagan made a few speeches but was basically forced into retirement because of his illness, Alzheimer's disease. George Bush has done a variety of activities, including writing and speaking. Bill Clinton plans to write, give speeches, and work on his presidential library. He will probably participate in a variety of business-related activities, as well as perform the social functions of a Senate spouse.

Q: What is the history of the U.S. president’s budget?

A: Congress established the requirement for an executive budget in 1921 with the enactment of the Budget and Accounting Act. Prior to that time, executive departments and agencies went directly to Congress for their annual appropriation, and the president had no formal role in the budget process.

From 1921 to 1939, a budget division operated from within the Treasury Department, coordinating the cycle for the preparation of the annual presidential budget and its presentation to Congress. In 1939 Franklin Roosevelt got legal authority to create the Executive Office of the President and moved the Bureau of the Budget into that office, where it has remained ever since. In 1970 President Nixon enlarged the agency's functions to include management improvement in the executive branch and changed the name of the office to The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is its current title.

OMB has about 550 people working for it. Most are career civil servants. There are about 20 political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. They include the director, deputy director, five program associate directors, and the heads of various offices.

Q: How long do presidential transitions take and how much do they cost?

A: Officially, transitions take 75 to 77 days—the time from the election to the inauguration. Unofficially, they last longer. Often begun quietly during the campaign, transitions last until the administration is staffed and begins to function. In 2000, because of the Florida election controversy, the official transition lasted only 36 days. However, George W. Bush let it be known during the campaign who would handle transition matters: Clay Johnson, Bush’s chief of staff when he was governor of Texas. Once the election was determined, Johnson became the executive director of the transition and Dick Cheney became the official head.

Congress has enacted legislation to help pay the costs of transition. The newly elected administration received $5 million for expenses during the transition. The General Service Administration provided office space and computer facilities. In addition to these official expenses, there are the costs of the inaugural activities: the dances, parade, and other festivities, which includes outlays for food, music, overtime wages for police, and building rentals. These costs are paid for by voluntary contributions and ticket sales.

Q: Would other forms of government such as socialism work in the United States? If so, what would have to happen in order for that to work?

A: Socialism is an economic system in which the government controls certain principal industries and distributes resources to the society as a whole. We have had socialist communities, but no socialist government in the United States of which I am aware. However, there has been a persistent conservative Republican reaction to the big-government, domestic programs that began in Franklin Roosevelt's administration and continued through Lyndon Johnson's. Some of these critics believed that Clinton's health-care proposal to the Congress would have fit into the 'socialist' category.

Socialized medicine would be a system like the Canadian system in which all citizens are entitled to benefits and the costs are paid for by tax and other government revenues. The closest we have come to a socialized system in the United States is Social Security, a pension system run by the government for the benefit of retirees who meet the criteria of having paid into the system for a certain number of years. Medicare and Medicaid are also social systems.

Our country seems to be moving in the direction of the private sector for social benefits, not the government. President Bush would privatize some of Social Security; the Republicans wish to have Medicare as one of a number of health insurance forms; and the others would be operated by the private sector. Although we could theoretically have greater government control of the economy and distribution of social benefits without changing the Constitution, such a situation does not seem likely as long as there is so much public mistrust of government and those who work in it.

Q: What is the Office of the Pardon Attorney?

A: It is the job of the pardon attorney to review appeals for pardons and clemency and to complete a report for the president, through the attorney general, that describes the case, the court decision, the judgment, and the opinion of law enforcement officials as to the merits of the appeal.

Q: Why do political parties in the United States have less influence over candidates and policies than they once had?

A: Political parties in the United States have lost influence over their candidates largely because of the reforms they made in nomination processes beginning in the 1970s. Primary elections and caucuses have replaced the selection of presidential and congressional candidates by party leaders. Primaries and caucuses allow rank-and-file party members to participate in the selection of their party’s nominees. Thus candidates for the nomination appeal to their party's electorate, not to the party leadership, to become the nominee. Candidates run on their own record and promises, not necessarily on the party's. It is natural that they would try to redeem these promises once elected. Today's political parties stand for what their elected officials stand for and not the other way around.

Q: Why does the cost of political campaigns seem to keep rising?

A: A variety of factors account for the rising cost of campaigns. Media advertising, which has become the primary way to communicate with voters, is expensive, more so now than in the past. The proliferation of primaries, elections to select a political party’s nominees for public office, has added to the money game. Now most candidates have to run in two elections, one for the nomination and one for the general election, rather than just one.

Another reason for the increase in expenditures has been the new, and expensive, technology used by candidates: public opinion polls, direct mail, computerized voter lists, targeted messages, and other tools. More candidates are funding polls to determine their strengths and weaknesses. Weaker party organizations at the grass-roots level mean that candidates must either pay for professionals to do the work or build their own organization, both of which incur considerable cost.

The use of soft money to circumvent the limits placed on campaign contributions has made campaigns more expensive. In addition, money spent by interest groups and political parties on issue advocacy, which entails pushing a particular policy or position and associating it with a candidate, has played a role.

Other factors that have pushed campaigning costs up include the decline in voter turnout (more money has to be spent just getting people to vote); the prosperity of the country (as people become wealthier, they have more money to give and spend on elections); and the move toward “constant campaigning,” in which campaigns never cease, from the moment of election to reelection. Given these factors, total campaign expenditures are going up, up, and up with no end in sight.

Q: How is it possible for a U.S. president to get elected without winning the highest number of popular votes?

A: The presidential election is decided in the electoral college, in which states give their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. It is a winner-take-all system that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to a single candidate. Since there is no proportional representation, losers get nothing. Thus a candidate who loses the popular vote by a narrow margin in the large states—those that have the most electoral votes—and wins by a large margin in the middle-sized and smaller states may win the popular vote but fail to win a majority of electoral votes.

In the 2000 presidential election, Democratic candidate Al Gore lost to Republican candidate George W. Bush, even though Gore won the popular vote. Such a result has occurred just twice before in American history, both in the 19th century: the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and the election of Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Q: How does the public evaluate the president?

A: In general, the public employs three criteria when they evaluate U.S. presidents. One relates to external condition and events. If these are favorable—if the economy is strong, for example—and if presidents can demonstrate some responsibility for contributing to these conditions or events, then they tend to get credit for it, probably more than they deserve. The opposite is true as well. Presidents get more blame than they merit if conditions and events are unfavorable.

A second set of judgment criteria used by the public are “in agreement” measures. People tend to evaluate presidents more highly when they agree with them philosophically, ideologically, and politically. Conservative Republicans who opposed a strong role for the national government in domestic affairs supported President Ronald Reagan far more than did those who had different beliefs and loyalties. Similarly, most Democrats remained loyal to President Bill Clinton throughout his presidency. But as Clinton adopted and pursued moderate, traditionally Republican positions such as free trade, some Democrats, including organized labor, mounted a major movement to oppose free trade and the President’s pursuit of it.

The third group of factors that the public uses when assessing presidents are personal traits and behavior. The presidency as an institution demands strength, boldness, decisiveness, courage, empathy, knowledge, communicative skills, and honesty, to name a few desirable qualities. Some people want the president to set a good example, to be a model for the nation, a person whom its citizens respect. Presidents who demonstrate these desirable characteristics are viewed favorably as individuals, even if their policies may be criticized. Presidents who appear to lack these qualities, which may be demonstrated by their behavior, are viewed more critically on a personal level. This happened to Bill Clinton, who had high job approvals but much lower personal approval ratings in his second term in office.

Q: Are public expectations of U.S. presidential leadership unrealistic?

A: You bet they are, but it is not the public’s fault. Presidential candidates make hundreds of promises, propose many and sometimes conflicting policies, and rarely prioritize courses of action. They also give the impression that if they are elected, they will redeem their promises and achieve their policies—not like the other guy.

But the U.S. Constitution was not designed to promote the dominance of one branch of government; it was designed to prevent that dominance by separating powers among the different branches. Nor did the framers of the Constitution envision a large policy-making role for the president; they saw most public policy-making as emanating from the U.S. Congress, not the president.

The public expects that if there is a problem the president will propose a solution; if there is a crisis, the president will manage it; if there is an international confrontation, the president will protect American lives and interests. Yet most problems, crises, and international confrontations cannot be resolved solely by the president. Rather they are the product of many factors and events, some of which may be in the president’s control, but most of which probably are not.

For example, the public expects the president to fix a broken economy—one that is stagnant, inflated, or depressed. But presidents cannot do so alone. Congress, the Federal Reserve System, and the private sector all contribute to a solution, much as they may all have contributed to the problem in the first place. Expectations of presidential leadership demand too much from a single person and that’s unrealistic.

Q: Do U.S. presidents have any judicial powers?

A: The U.S. Constitution regards the president as a court of last resort. In much the same manner, the British monarch, in bygone days, could make a final decision to reverse or support the judgment of subordinate officials. A president can pardon those accused of federal crimes, as Gerald Ford did when he pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for crimes that he committed or may have committed as president. A president can grant clemency, as Bill Clinton did for several people who had been convicted and jailed for their involvement in terrorist activities intended to demonstrate support for the independence of Puerto Rico. A president can provide amnesty, as Jimmy Carter did for those who had violated the Selective Service Act and refused to serve in the Vietnam War. All of these presidential actions generated political controversy, but they did not raise questions about the president’s authority to do as he did.

The president also has authority to instruct the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. government, to investigate, prosecute, and appeal lower court decisions. Sometimes presidents will have some discretion in how the attorneys general execute a court decision as well.

Q: Is it possible for a person with a mental illness such as manic depression to be elected president?

A: The Constitution does not state that people with a medical or mental illness cannot be elected president. It would be up to the electorate to decide whether a person was mentally fit to be president.

In 1972 the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Thomas Eagleton, had a condition that resembled manic depression. When that condition became public, he was forced to resign as the Democratic nominee. Now, almost 30 years later and with modern medicine, I am not sure whether he would have resigned or let the people decide.

Q: How does a president’s personality affect his decisions? Are certain types of personalities better suited for presidential leadership?

A: As much as we may deify a president, he is a human being with feelings and emotions like the rest of us. If he is sick, irritable, angry, or tired, it is likely to affect his decision-making. A president's character is important. It indicates the amount of ambition, integrity, and people skills that he possesses.

Bill Clinton, who served as president from 1993 to 2001, is known for his ambition. He has said that he wanted to be president ever since he shook the hand of President John F. Kennedy as a junior in high school. During his presidency, Clinton's integrity was called into question by his attempt to conceal an intimate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, a scandal that resulted in Clinton’s impeachment. Some members of the Republican Party alleged that the president lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky under oath, an action that constituted a violation of the presidential oath he took to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Clinton's Democratic defenders, however, claimed that his integrity was best revealed by his desire to work hard for the good of the country. Everyone agrees that Bill Clinton has great people skills. Republicans think Clinton uses those skills to manipulate people; Democrats say that Clinton genuinely likes people and wants to help them.

Psychological characteristics also affect a president’s governing style and worldview. Ronald Reagan was comfortable delegating considerable responsibility to others while Jimmy Carter was a hands-on president. Presidents Reagan and George Bush saw the world in terms of good (the non-Communist world) and bad (the Communist world). Clinton saw the post-Communist world as more nuanced, with finer shades of distinction.

President George W. Bush has good people skills, but he is not known as a deep thinker or a detail-oriented policy expert as Vice President Al Gore and Clinton were. His style is to delegate to others. It remains to be seen how he views the world.

Q: Which 20th-century president was the most popular?

A: Only since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt have public opinion pollsters conducted scientific surveys to assess presidential popularity. These surveys, which have greatly increased in number, sophistication, and scope, use public approval of the president as their basic measurement of presidential popularity. The question is, Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job the president is doing?

Since the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Gallup poll has been calculating average yearly approval ratings for presidents. The highest approval ratings, all above 70 percent, were recorded for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson after they took office, and for Eisenhower at the end of his first term. The lowest approval ratings, all below 40 percent, went to Gerald R. Ford after his pardon of Richard Milhous Nixon, Jimmy Carter at the end of his administration following the failed rescue operation for U.S. hostages held in Iran, and George Bush during the 1992 recession. It is interesting to note that at the end of the Persian Gulf War, Bush’s approval rating approached 90 percent. His drop in approval was the steepest on record. Bill Clinton’s approval rating was much higher in his second term than in his first and reached its highest point after he was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial.

It is harder to measure popularity after presidents leave office. Harry S. Truman’s popularity rose significantly, Nixon’s remained low, and Kennedy’s fell somewhat. Ultimately it is the academic historians and political scientists whose interpretations and reevaluations determine a president’s legacy and place in history, not the general public.

Q: Does the U.S. president serve important psychological or symbolic functions?

A: The U.S. president is head of government and head of state. As head of government, the president proposes and implements public policy. As head of state, the president represents the country, meets with foreign leaders, presides over ceremonies, manages crises, and communicates and interacts with the people. In both capacities, the president personifies the government. By doing so, he gives people an uncomplicated way to evaluate government performance.

The president also satisfies the needs of some people for a larger-than-life figure, a charismatic leader, a helmsman to steer the ship of state—particularly in bad times—and an empathetic and caring ruler in times of disaster. People want a common person with uncommon traits as their president, a person of the people but one who towers over them, a public servant, policy maker, political leader, and royal-like figure all rolled up into one.

Q: What is the history of the president’s State of the Union address?

A: George Washington gave the first State of the Union address. It was a formal occasion; Washington traveled to the Capitol by a horse-drawn coach and presented the speech just as the British prime minister would give the speech to the king or queen with the lords in attendance. John Adams followed Washington's lead, but Thomas Jefferson, who was not a good public orator, sent his speech to Congress to be read by the clerk of the House of Representatives. Over the years this practice continued with the address becoming in effect a report on what the departments and agencies had accomplished in the last year.

Woodrow Wilson resumed the practice of giving the State of the Union message himself. It became a more political address. Harry S. Truman is the father of the modern State of the Union address. He is the first to use it to present his legislative program in 1948, a practice that his successors have followed. He is also the first to have it televised across the country and to give it during prime time in the evening.

Today's State of the Union message is a collaborative effort that takes several months to create. Government departments and agencies are asked for their input, the White House coordinates that input, and the speechwriters go through several versions in conjunction with the president, chief of staff, vice president, and other advisers. The president often rehearses the speech several times before he presents it to Congress in late January or early February. Bill Clinton reputedly made changes in the address in his car ride from the White House to the Capitol.

Q: What is the function of the president’s cabinet? Who may belong to the Cabinet?

A: With the development of policy councils in the White House, the Cabinet's role as an advisory body to the president has been diminished. Not since the Eisenhower administration has the Cabinet served in this capacity.

The Cabinet no longer functions as an effective advisory body because it has become too large, too diverse, and too leaky. All department heads and the vice president are automatically members of the president's cabinet. In addition, there are other administrators that were traditionally given cabinet rank and thus were invited to Cabinet meetings: the United Nations ambassador, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, and the U.S. Trade Representative.

The primary function of the Cabinet as a collectivity today is nothing more than to pose for a group picture at the beginning of the administration. Individually, cabinet members have considerable authority within their respective departments. By tradition the Inner Cabinet—the attorney general and the secretaries of state, defense, and treasury—have the greatest prestige and presumably the greatest influence with the president. Other cabinet members' influence stems from their personal relationship to the president.

Q: How is policy made in the presidency? Who makes it?

A: Since the 1960s, policy councils have been established in the White House to formulate priorities for presidential policy. John F. Kennedy was the first president to set up a national security operation within the White House, which he used to keep himself informed and involved in foreign policy and national security affairs. Lyndon Johnson expanded this office and used it as a primary advisory group for the war in Vietnam. Johnson also established a domestic counterpart in the White House to help him design and coordinate his Great Society program. Richard Nixon enlarged both councils under the direction of Henry Kissinger for national security and John Erlichman for domestic policy.

All presidential councils were in charge of developing and coordinating major presidential initiatives. Gerald Ford added an economic policy board that became the forerunner of the economic councils that have functioned since Ronald Reagan’s administration to formulate major economic policy.

Each of these policy councils is headed by an assistant to the president and a deputy assistant, both of whom work in the West Wing of the White House and are included on its payroll. The rest of the staff, anywhere from 25 to 100 people, have their offices in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House and are on the Executive Office of the President (EOP) budget.

There are also councils on space and technology and environmental affairs, and they are part of the EOP.

Not only do these councils develop policy for the administration, but they also incorporate the resources of the executive branch departments and agencies, respond to congressional initiatives and legislative changes to the president's proposals, and brief the president for major speeches, meetings, and events in which these policy issues will be discussed.

Q: What presidential program (Monroe Doctrine, Four Freedoms, New Deal, or other program) has had the most impact on American society?

A: Programs that have the greatest impact are those that change the course of public policy. They are usually preceded by an era in which the contemporary policy has not produced a satisfactory consequence—hence, the pressure to change and the public’s receptivity to change.

In the domestic area, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures is usually cited as the building block for America’s initial economic growth, while Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in areas outside of Union control. Later constitutional amendments prohibited slavery, protected the rights of newly freed people, and penalized states that prevented their citizens from obtaining due process and equal protection of the laws.

It wasn’t until the 20th century that this growth started producing social conditions that had an adverse effect on society. Thus, the need and demand for government to begin to regulate this activity. Theodore Roosevelt’s Square Deal Program and Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom program contained regulatory, antitrust, and conservation measures. During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal policy helped involve government in the economy and made the president the manager—a role that presidents must still play. Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights and Great Society programs extended the reach of government to the protection of civil liberties and the redistribution of economic resources to those who were most needy.

More recently, Ronald Reagan's conservative agenda sought to limit the role of the government in domestic affairs, reduce its regulatory activities, and cut back on nationally run social programs. This agenda put an end to the era of liberal, big government. The Republicans’ Contract with America would have taken this a step further had Clinton not vetoed some of its more strident proposals. Nonetheless, the welfare reform and the removal of farm subsidies were two Republican proposals that Clinton supported.

In foreign policy, George Washington’s warning to his fellow Americans not to engage or become embroiled in entangling alliances held for most of the 18th and 19th centuries, although the Monroe Doctrine did carve out an area of hegemony for the United States within its own hemisphere. In the 20th century, America began to get more involved in foreign affairs and international politics. Theodore Roosevelt was primarily responsible for the building of the Panama Canal, and Woodrow Wilson led the country into World War I with the hope of making the world safe for democracy. But he failed to lead us out of it, as the Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty that ended the war and established the League of Nations. Franklin Delano Roosevelt led us into World War II to fight Nazism in Europe and Japan’s military conquests in Asia. Harry Truman’s containment policy recognized the danger posed by Communism, first in Europe, then in China and in the rest of Asia. Dwight Eisenhower’s mutually assured destruction (MAD) recognized the power of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war. Since the end of the Cold War, there has not been one overarching policy, other than human rights and democratic principles, that has guided U.S. foreign policy.

Q: Have the rules governing presidential succession changed over the years?

A: New laws and constitutional amendments have affected presidential succession. In 1947 Congress enacted the Presidential Succession Act, which delineated the line of succession after the vice president, in the following order: speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the Senate, and cabinet secretaries in order of the creation of their respective departments, beginning with the secretary of state.

The 25th Amendment stipulates the procedures for the vice president temporarily assuming the presidency if the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, as well as the procedures for terminating the vice president as acting president when the president is able resume his duties and responsibilities.

Another provision of the amendment states the procedures for filling the vice presidency should it become permanently vacant through death, resignation, or succession to the presidency. In such cases, the president would nominate a new vice president who would then have to be approved by a majority vote of each house of Congress.

Q: Are the most popular U.S. presidents the most effective leaders?

A: Popularity and leadership do not necessarily go hand in hand for U.S. presidents. Popularity stems from heroic stature, good times, and the ability to satisfy the wishes of the people at the moment. Leadership involves goal setting, public education and mobilization of the populace, and a vision beyond the here and now. Most importantly, to exercise leadership, a president needs a crisis. Bad times are good times for the exercise of presidential power, unless the president is blamed for the bad times. The American constitutional system of separated powers and checks and balances inhibits strong leadership most of the time and especially during good times.

Q: How did presidents communicate with the American people before radio and television?

A: Before radio and television, there was not a lot of public communication between the president and the American public. What little there was occurred in newspaper accounts of them, as well as in campaign speeches and other presidential addresses. Presidential candidates did not run their own political campaigns for office until the end of the 19th century. Their parties ran campaigns on their behalf.

The most effective way to reach the public prior to radio and television was through newspapers. Beginning in the 20th century, the White House became a focus of media attention. Several large newspaper chains assigned reporters to cover the president. William McKinley was the first president to have an official press secretary; he also gave formal interviews to media representatives. Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to give reporters a room in the White House—something that all of his successors have likely regretted. Roosevelt encouraged them to follow him around the country and to report on his speeches and activities. So did Woodrow Wilson.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first president to use radio on a regular basis to reach the entire country with his so-called “fireside chats,” which he gave once or twice a year. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president to allow television cameras into his press conferences, although the coverage was not live. Transcripts were released after the conference. John F. Kennedy had the first live press conference and the first to be televised to Europe via satellite.

Q: Why can’t U.S. presidents get their way with Congress most of the time?

A: Each member of the U.S. Congress is nominated and elected by a specific constituency. Each member owes his or her principal allegiance to that constituency, not to the president. Most members, in fact, earn a larger share of the vote in their particular legislative districts than the president does, when both are elected at the same time. Why then should these members follow the president’s lead?

Under the U.S. Constitution, presidents have very limited authority when dealing with Congress. They can say no to Congress with conviction. Only about 4 percent of all presidential vetoes have ever been overridden. But presidents have much more difficulty persuading Congress to say yes to their proposals.

Presidents must first get a bill introduced in Congress, then get it sent to supportive Congressional committees for consideration, and then try to prevent some committee members and lobbyists who do not like the proposed legislation from adding crippling amendments or scuttling the bill entirely. Then presidents need a favorable rule for consideration in the House of Representatives followed by a majority vote.

In the Senate at least 60 votes (out of 100 total) are needed to break a filibuster if the opposition decides to engage in one. If the bill passes in different forms in the House and Senate, a conference committee is needed to work out the details, which must be approved by a new vote in each house. Throughout this process, presidents must work to build public support to provide members of Congress with political cover, if they need it, to vote for the president’s proposal.

It is difficult enough for a president to do all this when his party controls both houses of Congress. But when this is not the case—which has been most of the time since 1968—these tasks become nearly impossible. Often, the most favorable result a president can hope for is a great battle; multiple, public compromises; and an incremental solution. The most unfavorable result is no movement on the proposal at all.

Q: Do U.S. presidents have too much power on foreign policy matters?

A: If U.S. presidents have too much power over foreign policy, it is only because the U.S. Congress chooses not to exercise its constitutional powers or is unable or unwilling to do so. A treaty initiated by the president requires a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate to win authorization; it can require a vote in the House of Representatives as well if legislation to implement the treaty is required. The president’s diplomatic appointments must also receive Senate approval. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war, fund the military, and maintain rules regulating the armed forces.

Q: How have presidential candidates and presidents used the Internet?

A: The use of the Internet is a recent phenomenon. It began in the 1990s. George Herbert Walker Bush was the first president to have a computer terminal, but he did not use it very often. In 1993, Bill Clinton authorized a White House Web site. By the end of the Clinton administration, that site contained much of the official data of the Clinton presidency, from presidential speeches to press briefings and conferences, executive orders, proclamations, and legislative actions. It also noted all presidential activities. The site has an easy-to-use search engine and links to the rest of the government.

Both Clinton and Republican candidate Robert Dole had campaign Web sites in 1996, but they paled in comparison to the 2000 sites that were used by all presidential candidates. These sites were used to present candidates’ positions on the issues, raise money, mobilize volunteers, and generate enthusiasm for the candidacies and campaigns.

Q: Do U.S. presidents have too much or too little power?

A: For some people, the answer to this question may depend on whether they support or oppose what the president wants to do! In general, presidents have more power in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs; they have more power in times of crises than in ordinary times; and they have more power to say no in general, and to the U.S. Congress in particular, than to say yes. They have some power to influence the composition of the Supreme Court, if there are vacancies, but much less power in affecting how and what the Court decides.

Given the public’s desire for strong presidential leadership, the many roles we expect presidents to perform, the promises presidential candidates make to get elected, and the needs of the governmental system for a policy initiator, coalition builder, and if successful, a policy implementer, presidents do not have too much power. Most of the time they have too little power.

When Dick Cheney, elected vice president in 2000, was chief of staff for Gerald R. Ford in 1976, I asked him if he liked his job. He said, “I love it.” I then asked him what he liked about it: the power, the interaction with the president and other prominent people, or the impact he could have on world and national events. “It is everything but the power,” he said. “When you are on the outside, looking in, the White House seems like such a powerful place. But when you are on the inside, looking out, all you are aware of are the constraints.”

Q: Should presidents seek to be moral leaders, or should they focus on concrete policies, such as the nation’s economic well-being?

A: The U.S. president performs a number of roles. Chief policy-maker is one of them, but setting a good example is another. We need direction from the president, but we also like to look up to the president. Setting a moral example is part of the president's job. Yet, if the impeachment of President Bill Clinton tells us anything, it is that most Americans would rather have a strong leader in the White House—someone who can fix the country's policy problems—than a saint. President Jimmy Carter would have been reelected in 1980 if the American people wanted a moral leader. At the time, however, most people wanted the economy to improve and the American hostages in Iran released.

Q: Why have some presidents been more successful with Congress, and what accounts for their success?

A: Presidential success with the United States Congress varies primarily with four factors, only one of which is subject to much presidential control. These factors are: the conditions, the partisan composition of Congress, the type of policy, and the popularity, legislative, and communicative skills of the president.

Presidents have more success with Congress in times of crisis and when their partisans control both houses of Congress. Presidents have more influence in foreign policy than in domestic policy. They usually have more influence if they are popular and persuasive in the public arena, have a strong reputation in Congress, and understand the intricacies of the legislative process.

The most successful legislative presidents in the 20th century were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Ronald Reagan. All were able to get their domestic programs enacted into law—programs that had a major impact on the country in the decades that followed their presidencies.

Most presidents are successful in saying no. Less than 5 percent of all presidential vetoes have been overridden. It takes a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

Q: Does the public have a right to know about the personal lives of candidates who are running for high political offices?

A: The news media has answered this question with a collective 'yes' by making personal information about political candidates available. Such information tends to increase the size of the news media's audience, since personal lives and behavior seem to be more interesting to more people than are detailed discussions of issues and policy. Many scholars would say that private information should be available only if it is relevant to a person’s performance in office. Was information about President Bill Clinton’s relationship with White House aide Monica Lewinsky relevant to this performance? Democrats and Republicans disagreed in their answers, but people on both sides were interested in what the president did, which is why the press kept reporting such material.

Q: Do former presidents still receive protection from the secret service?

A: Former presidents get a nice pension plus secret service protection for life. Their spouses also receive protection, but their children do not. Former vice presidents also get protection if they desire it. Richard Nixon is the only president who voluntarily gave up his secret service protection—he hired private security guards.

Q: Has the study of the U.S. presidency changed in recent decades?

A: There has been a lot of interest in and research on the presidency. Scholars have utilized a variety of methods in studying the office. They continue to use case studies to illustrate how presidencies work and make decisions. They have also incorporated organization theory to look at the structure, functioning, and processes that occur within the institution.

Ever since Richard E. Neustadt's book, Presidential Power, was published in 1960, scholars have been concerned with the scope and limits of presidential influence. They have sought to measure this influence in a variety of ways: quantitatively, by analyzing congressional voting behavior, looking at presidential popularity, and evaluating presidential vetoes and executive orders; and qualitatively, by looking at decisions, speeches, and actions through case and comparative studies. Some have even attempted to use formal modeling, such as game theory, to discern rational decision-making and its consequences.

Q: What are swing voters and how can they affect election outcomes?

A: Swing voters are people who may cast ballots for either major political party. They tend to be people with weak or no partisan affiliation, people who vote more for the person than for the parties. Usually, they are people who pay less attention to campaigns, have less information about the issues, and are less confident that they will vote at all. Frequently, swing voters will make up their minds later in the campaign about whether to vote, and if so, for whom.

In close elections, swing voters can be the deciding factor in determining the outcome. That is why candidates tend to direct their appeals to these voters in the hope of winning their votes. In the 2000 presidential election, for example, public opinion polls indicated that many of the swing voters were located in the Midwest. Both Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush directed much of their advertising and personal campaign activities to this section of the country.

Q: What needs to be done during the transition from one U.S. presidential administration to the next?

A: The most important task during a transition is to begin the appointment process for the new administration. When a new president takes over, he has about 6,700 executive appointments to make. About half of these are for part-time positions, such as those of members of commissions and boards. Of the full-time appointees, 1,200 require Senate consent. These include department secretaries, agency heads, ambassadors, U.S. attorneys, and all the deputy and assistant secretaries and administrators. Most of the political appointees who help the president by serving in the White House or in other Executive Office of the President (EOP) offices do not require Senate consent.

In addition to getting his people in place and rewarding those who helped him win the election, the new president must meet with “official Washington,” especially members of Congress, to discuss his legislative priorities, and he must be in touch with world leaders who wish to congratulate him and who want to know of any changes in U.S. foreign policy. The new president must interact with the media, which will report his every move and decision, as well as delve into family and personal matters. Finally, he must display a 'presidential presence' by reaching out to his opponent's supporters while placating his own. A major public relations campaign emanating from the White House usually reinforces this presence and also emphasizes policy.

Q: What do vice presidents do?

A: The vice president has only two functions that are spelled out in the United States Constitution: to preside over the U.S. Senate and vote in case of a tie, and to take over the functions of the president if the president is temporarily or permanently disabled. In addition, vice presidents travel abroad on behalf of the president and the country; they make political speeches and raise money for their party; they get involved as advisers to the president and are regularly briefed on domestic and international affairs; and they may be given special assignments.

Vice President Al Gore was involved in many policy areas during the administration of President Bill Clinton. He supervised the administration’s appointments for positions having to do with the environment; he was in charge of a national performance review that aimed to make government leaner and more efficient; and he took the lead in high-tech and Internet matters. He did not invent the Internet, as he is often quoted as saying, but he did help the government get up to speed on it: He got the departments and agencies to use it to communicate to the public and got the White House to put all its official papers and speeches on its Web site.

Q: How large is the White House staff and what is its annual operating budget?

A: The size of the White House staff varies with the president. The actual number of full-time employees budgeted to the White House is determined by the U.S. Congress, as is the amount of money appropriated to running it. During the last several presidencies, there have been about 400 people who are considered members of the president’s White House staff. The annual budget for running the White House is in the neighborhood of $60 million. But that’s not all.

There are a lot of people who work in the White House but are on the budgets of other departments and agencies. The military aides and personnel who serve in the White House are paid by the armed services. Secret Service and uniformed service are formally attached to the Treasury Department and paid for out of its budget. The people who have custody of the public papers, maintain the grounds and the building, lead the tours—even those who oversee the computer and telephone systems—are all paid for out of separate budgets from other federal departments and agencies.

Finally, the White House often has specific needs for policy development or implementation. These needs can be met in the short run by assigning to the White House civil servants who work in other parts of the government. In general, these civil servants, often requested by name or by expertise, are detailed to the White House for specific assignments that range in length from several months to years. So the White House staff is much larger than it seems, and running it is more expensive than it appears to be.

Q: How is the White House organized?

A: How the White House is organized reflects the way individual presidents do business as well as the continuing needs and expectations that presidents fulfill. In general, the White House staff numbers about 400 people who are budgeted to the White House and about 100 to 200 people who are detailed to it from departments and agencies for special assignments. These people are roughly divided into three groups: policy, public relations, and personal staff.

The three major policy groups—economic, domestic, and national security—are each headed by an assistant to the president and a deputy assistant. The assistants and deputy assistants have offices in the White House. The rest of the staffs are located in the Old Executive Office Building. During the administration of Bill Clinton, these policy staffs reported to an assistant chief of staff, who reported to the chief of staff, who reported to the president.

There are five outreach offices that are intended to serve the president's principal constituencies. The office of communications, including the press secretary, speechwriters, and researchers, serves the public. The office of legislative affairs serves Congress, while the office of public affairs serves interest groups. The office of intergovernmental affairs serves state and local governments, and the office of political affairs serves the president’s political party. Under Clinton, these outreach offices reported to another assistant chief of staff.

The rest of the staff helps the president with his day-to-day activities, including appointment scheduling, travel planning, personnel issues, legal issues, correspondence, and other matters. On paper, these staffs report to the staff secretary who serves the president's chief of staff. In person, the chief of staff or his or her assistants may be directly involved.

The chief of staff has four functions: run the White House, advise the president, act as a liaison between the president’s Cabinet and Congress, and oversee and react to the political environment in which policymaking occurs. The chief of staff usually meets with the president every morning, as does the national security adviser. The vice president also has an office near the president’s in the White House, as does the vice president’s chief of staff. The First Lady and her staff are located in the East Wing of the White House.

Q: From what I've read about the daily life of a US President, it sounds like a lot of work and intense stress, without a hugely rewarding salary, or—often—the ability to effect the changes they hoped for upon entering office. What is the draw for a politician to want to be president? Do many presidents actually enjoy the job while doing it? Did any recent President, whom you are aware of, regret getting elected?

A: The presidency can be hard work and involve long hours and great stress. Whether or not the job gets to a president greatly depends on the individual’s personality and approach to the job. By contemporary standards, Reagan did not work extraordinary hours and slept well at night. George W. Bush does not seem to overtax himself and so far has not let the job get to him. On the other hand, his father and Bill Clinton worked all the time. Clinton loved it: the attention, the challenge, the adulation, and the impact he made. His tough time has come since he has been out of office.

The job can be frustrating because there is a great gap (which presidential candidates have helped enlarge) between what the public expects, what the presidential candidate has promised, and what the president can actually deliver. Our system of government was not intended to be dominated by one institution, much less one person. The government consists of three branches and literally millions of elected and appointed offices and public servants.

So what is the inducement for running?

1. It is considered the nation's top and most respected position.

2. It matters who is president. A president can make a difference.

3. The salary is not the top draw, but Congress just raised it to $400,000, and presidents do very well after they leave office.

But remember, those who run for elective office have huge ego needs they believe the presidency can fulfill. Clinton wanted the job since he met John F. Kennedy at the White House as a teenager. Few people would turn down the opportunity to be president, even if it means running for two years for the job, a feat that many of the candidates also enjoy.

The only one I can think of who said “no thanks” was General Colin Powell, our current secretary of state. Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge did not enjoy being president. For Harding the job was too tough; Coolidge seemed depressed and daydreamed a lot.

Q: If a woman is elected president, what impact might it have?

A: The election of a woman to the U.S. presidency would have a more symbolic than tangible impact on the presidency and national politics. It would be viewed as a coming of age for America, a fusion of the nation’s inspirational words, aspirations, and deeds. It would be a nail in the coffin of bigotry, the ending of informal qualifications based on gender, race, and religion, all of which bear no relationship to the exercise of leadership skills and the ability to be a good president.