The president of the United States is one of the most powerful positions within the government.

Those who have held this office have often been criticized, applauded and ostracized for their execution of their duties. Yet, the role of the president and the scope of its authority are often misunderstood. This was evident in the past presidential election. A cursory look at pubic perception showed that people perceived the office of the president to be responsible not only for the execution of the American government, but also for its cultural and moralistic values. Interestingly, many Americans claimed that if a certain person or a political party became president, they would in fact move to Canada1. This post examines the, situations that determine the authority of the executive office, the role of the president as intended by the founding fathers. The role of the president is not determined by the president, but by the electorates. This is because as an electorate, our votes signal to the president what our situation is and it is the message sent by this signal that provides the president with a certain type of authority. Hamilton discusses the dangers of having a plurality in the executive. He acknowledges that the notion of a plurality in the leadership may serve the purpose of providing that no one person is able to have too much power, but the potential for danger comes when this group of leaders decide to band together.
When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse, and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who, from the very circumstance of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others. 2

Hamilton understands that having a plurality within the leadership would potentially create several issues. Hamilton in Federalist 70 establishes an outline of the necessary conditions of an effective president. Hamilton refers to these conditions as energy. He states, The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers. It is evident that Hamilton feels that the role of the president needs to fulfill certain requirements. Hamilton links the presidency to the claim of authority. He viewed the need for a disruption in the tenure of the president as an indication of the citizens opinion regarding the presidents performance of his duties. As such, Hamilton advocated having no limit on the incumbents ability to be reelected. He
1 Ortved, John. "At a Loss? There's Always Canada." The New York Times, November 4, 2012: ST1. 2 Federalist paper, No. 70

viewed the process of reelection as an affirmation from the public that the president is doing his job well. Hamilton, in order to further this necessary condition and his advocating of reelecting the president applies a Downsian view of the citizens voting behavior. Hamilton sees the reelection of the president as an affirmation from the electorate that the presidents action and achievements were satisfactory. Despite Hamiltons intentions, the role of the presidency and the authority derived from it did not remain static. Instead, the authority of the president and his role would be challenged by the world in which it came into power. Stephen Skowronek in The Politics Presidents Make, describes the responsibility placed on the authority of the presidency as the office charges its incumbents with great responsibility for political leadership and then circumscribes them in a host of contrivances designed to control ambition and stave off the dread forces of disruption. Provisions for vigorous action press uncertainly against provisions for stabilizing the politics of the republic.3 In describing the authority afforded the incumbents, Skowronek describes four structures of presidential authority. These structures determine the amount of authority the president can have. They are, the politics of reconstruction, the politics of disjunction, the politics of articulation, and the politics of preemption. Skowroneck examines the presidents who came in during these situations and how they were perceived by their electorate. Skowroneck provides us with an example of presidents who had exhibited the politics of reconstruction, Articulation, and Disjunction. President Roosevelt had to deal with the politics of reconstruction, Johnson with Articulation and Carter with Disjunction. All three presidents came into power during very important times in American history and all threes authority was enhanced or undercut by the social/political climate they inherited. The reading provides background for an interesting question of our current President. Could we consider Obama, during his first term, as a president who exhibited the politics of reconstruction, articulation, or disjunction? Skowroneck describes the presidents who constituted a politics of reconstruction as, There initial election thrust them into a kind of political interregnum beyond all semblance of legitimate political order. Opposition to the old regime held sway in the Congress as well as the presidency, and though the election returns did not convey any clear message as to what exactly should be done, they did reflect a general political consensus that something fundamental had gone wrong in the high affairs of state.4

3 Skowronek, Stephen. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA: Blknap Press of Harvard University Press , 2002. 4 Ibid.

This describes the political and social climate of the country when Obama first came into power. Things were not as bad, but there was a consensus through the election that things needed to change.

Works Cited Ortved, John. "At a Loss? There's Always Canad." The New York Times, November 4, 2012: ST1. Skowronek, Stephen. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA: Blknap Press of Harvard University Press , 2002.