Michael Nelson: Bush lacks persuasive powers, so how has he amassed so many other kinds?
[Michael Nelson is a professor of political science at Rhodes College and, this spring, a visiting professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. His books include The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776-2007 (5th edition, with Sidney Milkis, CQ Press, 2008).]
The most influential sentence in the most influential book about the presidency of the past 50 years is seven words long. "Presidential power," the political scientist Richard Neustadt declared in his 1960 book Presidential Power, "is the power to persuade."
Persuade whom? Chiefly members of Congress, without whose support presidents cannot pass laws; and the general public, without whose approval the task of persuading Congress becomes much more difficult. Persuade them of what? That supporting the president's legislative agenda is in their interest as well as the president's.
Neustadt's thesis was itself persuasive because it aligned presidential studies with the recent behavioral revolution in political science, which treated power as a relational entity that flows from the interactions of leaders and the led. Not some "literary theory of the Constitution," Neustadt argued in dismissal of previous generations of presidential scholarship, but rather "personal power and its politics" lie at the heart of influence for those presidents who strive skillfully to persuade Congress and the people to support their initiatives.
Influential as it has been, however, Presidential Power leaves scholars incapable of explaining the presidency of George W. Bush, especially its second term. Bush is wildly unpopular: His public-approval rating has been troughed at 30 percent longer than any other modern president's. In Congress, Bush's post-re-election efforts to enact landmark legislation concerning Social Security and immigration have failed utterly. By Neustadt's standard, the president's inability to persuade almost anybody to support almost anything should have rendered him nearly powerless.
And yet Bush remains one of the most powerful presidents, well, ever. ...
Read entire article at Chronicle of Higher Ed
The most influential sentence in the most influential book about the presidency of the past 50 years is seven words long. "Presidential power," the political scientist Richard Neustadt declared in his 1960 book Presidential Power, "is the power to persuade."
Persuade whom? Chiefly members of Congress, without whose support presidents cannot pass laws; and the general public, without whose approval the task of persuading Congress becomes much more difficult. Persuade them of what? That supporting the president's legislative agenda is in their interest as well as the president's.
Neustadt's thesis was itself persuasive because it aligned presidential studies with the recent behavioral revolution in political science, which treated power as a relational entity that flows from the interactions of leaders and the led. Not some "literary theory of the Constitution," Neustadt argued in dismissal of previous generations of presidential scholarship, but rather "personal power and its politics" lie at the heart of influence for those presidents who strive skillfully to persuade Congress and the people to support their initiatives.
Influential as it has been, however, Presidential Power leaves scholars incapable of explaining the presidency of George W. Bush, especially its second term. Bush is wildly unpopular: His public-approval rating has been troughed at 30 percent longer than any other modern president's. In Congress, Bush's post-re-election efforts to enact landmark legislation concerning Social Security and immigration have failed utterly. By Neustadt's standard, the president's inability to persuade almost anybody to support almost anything should have rendered him nearly powerless.
And yet Bush remains one of the most powerful presidents, well, ever. ...