Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T17:48:21.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Power and Presidential Purpose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Douglas J. Hoekstra
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article first examines the ways in which Richard Neustadt's Presidential Power attempts to connect the activities of power-seeking presidents to the public ends their actions presumably further and then discusses what is problematic in these linkages. The critique focuses on the defects in Neustadt's concept of the “grain of history,” the diminished sense of public purposes revealed by the standard of “viability,” the difficulties in evaluating presidential actions with the criteria developed and the ways in which the failed linkage between the means to power and the ends served undermines Neustadt's own teaching. The paradoxical quality of Presidential Power, in which insightful analysis of the means to power is combined with unsatisfactory discussion of the purposes for which that power is to be employed, is seen as possibly rooted in Neustadt's tacit acceptance of positivist and historicist views, which are now increasingly called into question. The article contends that those concerned with the separation of the normative and the empirical begin efforts to reconnect presidential power to public purpose by going beyond the terms of Neustadt's argument and by reexamining the American Founding for what it may suggest about the intended ends of politics and the presidency.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 566 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Neustadt, Richard, Presidential Power (New York, 1960).Google Scholar

2 Sperlich, Peter W., “Bargaining and Overload,” in Perspectives on the Presidency, ed. Wildavsky, A. (Boston, 1975), pp. 406–430.Google Scholar

3 Loss, Richard, “Dissolving Concepts of the Presidency,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 6, no. 1 (Winter-Spring, 1976), 82.Google Scholar

4 Heclo, Hugh, Studying the Presidency (New York, 1977), p. 25.Google Scholar

5 Neustadt, , Presidential Power, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

6 Neustadt, , Presidential Power, 1976 edition, pp. 264–82Google Scholar. Neustadt's criteria are developed in his discussion of the Kennedy presidency.

7 Ibid., p. 264.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid., p. 251.

10 Ibid., p. 253.

11 Ibid., p. 252.

12 Ibid., p. 114.

13 Ibid., pp. 251–52.

14 Ibid., p. 251.

15 Ibid., p. 252.

16 For liberal and conservative variants on the idea of “two majorities,” see Burns, James MacGregor, The Deadlock of Democracy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963)Google Scholar and Kendall, Willmoore, The Conservative Affirmation (Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar; note also the treatment of presidential and congressional “tendencies” in Mayhew, David R., Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven and London, 1974), pp. 125–40, 168–74.Google Scholar

17 Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John, The Federalist, ed. Wright, Benjamin Fletcher (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961), No. 71, pp. 458–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Ibid., No. 24, No. 25.

19 For a general discussion of the influences of positivism and historicism, see Miller, Eugene F., “Positivism, Historicism, and Political Inquiry,” pp. 796–817Google Scholar; Braybrooke, David and Rosenberg, Alexander, “Comment: Getting the War News Straight: The Actual Situation in the Philosophy of Science,” pp. 818–26Google Scholar; Rudner, Richard, “Comment: On Evolving Standard Views in Philosophy of Science,” pp. 827–45Google Scholar; Landau, Martin, “Comment: On Objectivity,” pp. 846–56Google Scholar; Miller, Eugene F., “Rejoinder to ‘Comments,’” pp. 857–73Google Scholar, in American Political Science Review, 66, no. 3 (09, 1972).Google Scholar

20 See the critique of “the politics of interest” for parallels. Cochran, Clarke E., “Political Science and the ‘Public Interest,’” Journal of Politics, 36, no. 2 (05, 1974), 327–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Neustadt, , Presidential Power, pp. 132–48.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., p. 253.

23 Ibid., p. 250.

24 Federalist, , No. 71, pp. 459–60.Google Scholar

25 Neustadt, , Presidential Power, p. 105.Google Scholar

26 Cochran, , “Political Science and the ‘Public Interest,’” p. 336.Google Scholar

27 Neustadt, , Presidential Power, pp. 267–68.Google Scholar

28 See Flexner, James T., George Washington: The Forge of Experience (Boston, 1965)Google Scholar; Malone, Dumas, Jefferson and His Time, 6 volumes (Boston, 1948–1981)Google Scholar; Jaffa, Harry W., Crisis of the House Divided (Seattle and London, 1959)Google Scholar; Frisch, Morton J., Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Contribution of the New Deal to American Political Thought and Practice (New York, 1975).Google Scholar

29 Schoeck, Helmut, “Relativistic Absolutists and Public Policies,” Relativism and the Study of Man, eds. Schoeck, Helmut and Wiggins, James W. (Princeton, N.J., 1961), p. 87Google Scholar

30 Presidential Greatness, Bailey, Thomas A. (New York, 1966), p. 35.Google Scholar

31 Hoekstra, Douglas J., “The Textbook Presidency Revisited,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 12, no. 2 (Spring, 1982), 159–67.Google Scholar

32 Studying the Presidency, eds. Edwards, George C. III and Wayne, Stephen J. (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1983).Google Scholar

33 Ibid., pp. 6–7.

34 Hargrove, Erwin C., The Power of the Modern Presidency (Philadelphia, 1974), p. 11.Google Scholar

35 The intellectual career of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., well represents these tendencies. Contrast his treatment of the presidency in his early work, as opposed to his recent views: The Age of Jackson (Boston: 1946)Google Scholar; The Age of Roosevelt, 3 vols. (Boston: 1957–1960)Google Scholar; A Thousand Days (Boston: 1965)Google Scholar; The Imperial Presidency (Boston: 1973).Google Scholar

36 Burns, James MacGregor, The Power to Lead (New York, 1984).Google Scholar

37 See Schlesinger, , The Age of JacksonGoogle Scholar and The Age of Roosevelt; Pious, Richard M., The American Presidency (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Edwards, George C. III and Wayne, Stephen J., eds., Studying the PresidencyGoogle Scholar; Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr., The Imperial PresidencyGoogle Scholar; Huntington, Samuel P., American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, 1981)Google Scholar; Pyle, Christopher H. and Pious, Richard M., The President, Congress, and the Constitution: Power and Legitimacy in American Politics (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Bessette, Joseph M. and Tulis, Jeffrey, eds., The Presidency in the Constitutional Order (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and London, 1981).Google Scholar This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but representative of the tendencies discussed.

38 Corwin, Edward S., The President: Office and Powers (New York, 1941).Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 29.

40 Ibid., p. 315.

41 Ibid., p. 30.

42 Ibid., p. 316.

43 Corwin, Edward S., “The Dissolving Structure of Our Constitutional Law,” Washington Law Review, 20 (11 1945), 185–98Google Scholar, and “The President's Power,” The New Republic, 29 01, 1951, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

44 Corwin, , “Our Constitutional Revolution and How to Round It Out,” Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, 19 (04, 1948), 282.Google Scholar

45 Corwin, , “The Natural Law and Constitutional Law,” Proceedings of the Natural Law Institute, 3 (1950), 81.Google Scholar

46 Corwin, review of Dumbauld, Edward, The Declaration of Independence and What It Means Today (1950), in Cornell Law Quarterly, 37 (Winter, 1952).Google Scholar

47 Neustadt, Richard E., “What Did I Think I Was Doing?” Presidency Research, 7, no. 2 (Spring, 1985), 9.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., p. 6.

49 Neustadt, , Presidential Power, p. 111.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., p. ii of “Preface to the Original Edition.”

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid., p. 251.

53 Schlesinger, , The Age of Jackson and The Age of Roosevelt.Google Scholar

54 Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Boston, 1958), pp. 511–52.Google Scholar

55 Schlesinger, , The Age of Jackson, p. 45.Google Scholar

56 Schlesinger, , The Coming of the New Deal, p. 540.Google Scholar

57 Ibid., p. 528.

58 Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Politics of Upheaval (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960), p. 648Google Scholar; Schlesinger, , The Age of Jackson, p. 7, p. 43.Google Scholar

59 Schlesinger, , The Age of Jackson, p. 514Google Scholar; The Politics of Upheaval, p. 653.Google Scholar

60 Nelson, Michael, “Two Steps Forward (Is) One Step Back: Post-Neustadt Presidential Scholarship,” Presidency Research, 7, no. 2 (Spring, 1985), 22–23.Google Scholar

61 Without addressing these issues, Neustadt did comment in successive editions on the post-Eisenhower presidencies and such concerns as the role of presidential personality, political cycles and the need to consult long-term stakes for clues to “feasibility.” See 1976 and 1980 editions.

62 Schlesinger, , The Imperial Presidency, p. viii.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., p. ix.

64 Ibid, p. 287.

65 Corwin, Edward S., Loss, Richard, ed., Presidential Power and the Constitution (Ithaca, New York, 1976), p. xviiiGoogle Scholar from “Introduction” by Richard Loss.

66 Note Mansfield's comment on the relationship between Schlesinger's constitutional principles and political preferences. “No theory of a strong republican executive could survive the appearance of a strong Republican executive” (Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., “The Ambivalence of Executive Power,”Google Scholar in Bessette, and Tulis, , The Presidency in the Constitutional Order, pp. 318–19).Google Scholar

67 Schlesinger, , The Imperial Presidency, p. viii.Google Scholar

68 Ibid., p. 206.

69 Ibid., p. 65, p. 112, p. 173.

70 Ibid., p. x.

71 Pious, , The American Presidency, p. 47.Google Scholar

72 Ibid., p. 17.

73 Ibid., p. 50.

74 Ibid., pp. 16–17.

75 Ibid., pp. 255, 331, 407.

76 Huntington, Samuel, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, p. 232.Google Scholar

77 Ibid., p. 66.

78 Ibid., p. 129.

79 Ibid., p. 39.

80 Bessette, and Tulis, , The Presidency in the Constitutional Order, p. ix.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., pp. 16–26, 319–31.

82 Ibid., p. 29.

83 Pyle, and Pious, , The President, Congress, and the Constitution: Power and Legitimacy in American Politics, p. xx.Google Scholar

84 Ibid., p. xv.

85 Edwards, and Wayne, , Studying the Presidency, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

86 Ibid, p. 25.

87 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago and London, 1971), pp. 24–25, p. 5.Google Scholar

88 Kaplan, Abraham, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Francisco, 1974), p. 384.Google Scholar

89 Spragens, Thomas A. Jr., The Dilemma of Contemporary Political Theory (New York, 1973), pp. 122–24.Google Scholar

90 “The two presidents I then admired most, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, were precisely those he most feared” (Neustadt, Richard E., “What Did I Think I Was Doing?” Presidency Research, 7, no. 2 [Spring, 1985] 5).Google Scholar

91 Bessette, and Tulis, , The Presidency in the Constitutional Order, pp. 16–26.Google Scholar

92 Huntington, , American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, pp. 39, 66, 220, 261.Google Scholar

93 See Thach, Charles C. Jr., The Creation of the Presidency: 1775–1789 (Baltimore and London, 1969).Google Scholar