Representative Presidency

I believe the President should be a trustee in terms of how he runs the country.  The President has the difficult job of representing the country as a whole.  When the President discusses treaties with other countries, he does not represent the state of Michigan or the Midwest region; he represents the United States.  Therefore, the President has to make decisions for the country as a whole. Congress should be delegates because they are voted by their constituency and have their interests in mind.  While Congress does have national interests to consider, their primary interest is to the benefits of the people who vote for them.  This is why there are 100 senators and 435 House of Representatives; which is significant because it brings all the issues around the country into “one big pot.”  The President has different concerns than what a delegate may have.  For instance, the President has more concern with the middle class throughout the country while the governor from Indiana is concerned about the middle class within his or her state. As for the politico representation, I have never seen a President who represented this point of view.  Presidents are not career politicians; therefore reelection is not always on their mind.  Having said that, they do need to please their political party at times in order to pass a bill, but it has never dictated how they run the office.  Pros to running a trustee government is that the President will get things done.  The Executive office is the action arm of the government, therefore if the President is worried about pleasing a certain group of people, or pleasing their political party, nothing will get done.  There are too many people in the United States to please everyone, therefore the President needs to be focused on the national issues of the country and let Congress and state officials worry about other domestic concerns.  A con to this form of government is that the equal branches of government are not so equal.  The President will have to make some decisions without Congressional approval, and therefore he has more decision making power.  I do not think people should expect Presidents to be descriptively representative because I think people vote for someone based on substantive issues.  There are people who vote for Presidents who are descriptively representative, but not the majority.  Individuals vote for Presidents based on substantive representation.  For example, Ted Kennedy was well known for fighting for the poor, even though he grew up wealthy.  Presidents have switched in representation styles, particularly when they are running for elections.  President Obama would go into poor neighborhoods to show that he was “one of them,” but then switch styles and speak about the substantive issues that matter most.  Usually, the lower class involves the black community, so when they see President Obama walking around, they will vote for him.  In the 2008 election, President Obama received 96% of the black voters (politico.com), so in that case a descriptive representation worked.  I think this is a significant statistic because it’s hard to believe that 96% voted for Obama based on substantive issues.  This gives me the implication that there are certain parts of the country that are not as knowledgeable, and so they vote based on descriptive representation.

Roosevelt v. Taft

Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft differed greatly on the use of executive power.  Theodore Roosevelt declared that the President has a “residuum of powers” to do anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution.  Roosevelt believed “there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any office in any great republic or any constitutional monarchy in modern times.”  Roosevelt transformed the Presidency with popularity and empowerment greater than in the past.  William Taft was the opposite in that he was a passive executive.  Taft viewed Roosevelt as too aggressive, however they did have some similarities such as intervention in foreign affairs.  I believe in a hybrid of both Roosevelt and Taft’s view on presidential power. I do agree that Congress should be involved in the critical decisions regarding the nation; however there are instances where the President needs to make a decision without approval.  For instance, when the 9/11 attacks happened, the President had to make a lot of decisions that some would argue were stretching the executive powers.  Unfortunately, the government is very slow at making decisions, therefore, in cases of emergencies the President must have the power to make decisions quickly, and therefore expand the power of the executive branch.  There have been other cases where the President has used a far too aggressive approach to power.  For example, warrantless wiretaps and enhanced interrogation tactics could be seen as an abuse of power by President Bush.  Therefore, there needs to be a balance of when expanding executive power is necessary.  There are situations where this theory could be trouble because there is always someone who is absolutely against broad executive power, even in cases of emergencies.  As far as characteristics of a President, someone who is very liberal may disagree with this hybrid.  Someone like Jimmy Carter would probably disagree with me because he was a passive President, and therefore there are certain characteristics a President must possess in order to exercise expansive executive power.