Following the presidency, using politics offered by Pika and Maltese, it is easier to reflect their perspective through the analysis of the Neustadt’s theory on power to persuade. A president has various capacities of upholding the service of his/her duties. Although many tend to think that president’s roles are bound by the constitution, this has changed over the years given the increasing evolution in almost all facets of life. As such, Neustadt argues that a president does not have to always adopt the formal power mechanisms. In fact, he considers the usage of formal power as a failure of the president.
Since America has experienced a series of radical reforms in the quest for democracy, today’s government involves multiple parties that share power. To that end, the power to persuade ensures that the interests of the different political players align with those of the president (Neustadt 21). To secure his/her objectives, the chief power of the president is to create a confidential relationship with these players. Otherwise, pure usage of formal power is likely to significantly devalue the president’s endeavors. Persuasive strategies are more convincing compared to the formal undertakings. Previously, a president could simply exercise excessive power because there were insignificant numbers of networks, particularly in the media arena, to command American citizens. The Washington Press was the most prestigious media that people relied on. As such, despite the diversity and competition in the Congress, the public opinion was driven by a single factor.
However, the modern world has replaced the traditional media with many platforms of expressing opinions and commanding attention. Today, the Congress is less attached to the Washington hype. The members of the Congress focus on the congressional districts with minimal interactions across party lines (Grover 32). This explains why the members can win elections or retain their seats, even without the support of the president. Unlike in the past, elections incline more towards the primaries than the generals. The members do not have to give in to the president or compromise certain ideologies because of him. Given the success of the primary challengers and a strong base of different political parties, the members’ decisions do not have to fly the flag of the incumbent president. They can opt for challenging the government and garner enough support of the same.
Therefore, Neustadt is right when he says that the president has failed in cases where he relies on formal power and not persuasive power. That way, he undermines his endeavors to achieve thus paying a high political price. The difference is that today, lack of using the persuasive power show the failures of the entire political system. It projects that the various institutions that share power have failed in securing bargaining ends in their intents and purposes. On the other hand, the public concludes that there are institutions within the government that are secretly establishing a solid opposing power. Consequently, the American citizens become frustrated and start demanding changes in the political system.
As seen, the aspect of bargaining has greatly promoted dysfunctions by the American government. Nevertheless, the political landscape has changed. On many occasions, parties found their respective objectives at a junction, and in such an instances, it is hard for the president to use persuasion power. It suggests that the theory cannot be fully applied in the modern politics. The lack of bargain by various parties threatens the power to persuade. The members of the Congress appear to limit the campaigns of the president in districts where their re-election may be undermined. Depending on whether the member is a Democrat or Republican, there are implementations which the member would automatically support or oppose. Again, today the president cannot authoritatively marshal the legislative process or media fragmentation (Pika and Maltese 23). Political players are always seeking opportunities to enjoy political leverage. That is why government functions are now characterized with various politicians pitching campaigning remarks.
More so, Neustadt says that the persuasive task of the commander in chief is to ensure that the Congressmen and everybody else believe that their undertakings are in line with their responsibilities, and not the interests of the president (Neustadt 46). However, this may not happen in the modern politics. In 2013, the health care debacle threw the Congress in a sharp split. The Republican Congress members did not support the Affordable Care Act. All of them were against the implementation of this bill. Mind you, the members did not only reject the law, but also sought ways of making its legislations unworkable. Hence, in a political environment where members, especially the opposition party/government, stand against the government at all cost, the power to persuade may not apply. Suffice is to say that the theory of Neustadt is partly applicable in the modern politics and in accordance with the roles provided by Pika and Maltese. The case is especially so given that he established the theory more than five decades ago. However, relying on formal powers is also not the best option. The president is the chief of state, commander in chief, chief legislator, chief diplomat, super-politician, and chief executive. As such, sole execution of persuasion power is not enough.
Works Cited
Grover, William F. The President As Prisoner: A Structural Critique of the Carter and Reagan Years. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. Print.
Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power and Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership with Reflections on Johnson and Nixon. New York: J. Wiley, 1976. Print.
Pika, Joseph A, and John A. Maltese. The Politics of the Presidency. , 2014. Internet resource.
