Presidential Leadership : Politics and Policy Making

The presidency is both a much-praised and a much-damned institution. During the early 1960s, many thought presidential power was the key to change and saw the presidency as the major innovative force within the government. People looked to the president to satisfy an increasing number of their public policy demands. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, many of the same people saw presidential power as a serious problem. Scholars blamed presidents and their excesses for involvement in the war in Southeast Asia and for Watergate and other scandals. Restrain the “imperial” presidency became the cry. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter responded to this plea by attempting to deimperialize the office. Ford opened the White House to opposing views; Carter initially reduced the White House staff’s size, status, and perquisites. Both were careful not to exceed their constitutional and statutory powers. Growing institutional conflict between Congress and the presidency and within the executive branch raised questions about the possibility of effective governance. Worsening economic conditions, increasingly scarce resources, and a series of foreign policy crises produced a desire for more assertive leadership. Some observers saw the presidency as imperiled; weakness, not strength, was its problem. Disappointment in presidential performance replaced fear of presidential abuses.