The Electoral College and Presidential Leadership

Prepare:

Prior to beginning work on this discussion question, read Chapters 5 and 6 in American Government and review Week 3 Instructor Guidance. In addition, read

What Are the Arguments Made in Favor—and Against—the Electoral College? (Links to an external site.)

Stop Blaming the Electoral College (Links to an external site.)

, and “

Swing States, the Winner-Take-All Electoral College, and Fiscal Federalism

.”

Reflect:

As the textbook author asserts, the framers intentionally designed a process for selecting presidents that would minimize the president’s political power—the Electoral College. They hoped this institution would insulate the chief executive from the public, because they feared the power of presidents who might be elected by the people. However, the Electoral College has also spawned a long ongoing debate about whether it should be abandoned in favor of new methods, which would ensure that the candidate elected has the most popular votes. The controversy over the Electoral College must be understood to understand better how and why U.S. presidents are elected. Only five times in United States history has the candidate who won the popular vote lost the Electoral College vote. However, this has happened twice in the last 16 years—in the 2000 Bush/Gore election and again in the 2016 Trump/Clinton election.

Write:

For this discussion,

· Describe how the Electoral College works, select a presidential election from U.S. history, and discuss the results of the Compare the Electoral College results with the popular vote.

· Explain your position regarding the Electoral College and whether you are for or against the Electoral College as it is currently. Be sure to elaborate and explain your rationale for your position.

Your initial post must be at least 300 words. If you are citing statistics our outside resources, please list the website or the reference entry.

5 The Presidency

Associated Press/Kyodo

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the sources of the president’s power and authority.
• Explain the presidential elections process.
• Analyze the difference between a domestic and a foreign policy president.
• Describe how presidents use their political power.
• Describe the organization of the White House.
• Evaluate the concept of a wartime president.
• Analyze how Congress limits presidential power.
• Analyze the role of presidential character in evaluating presidents and presidential candidates.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 107 3/24/16 1:42 PM

In March 2011, an alliance of NATO countries, including the United States, launched air strikes
against Libya in a humanitarian mission to assist rebels fighting against Libyan strongman
Moammar Gadhafi. NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an alliance of
28 countries that agreed to protect each other in case of attack. In justifying U.S. involvement
in Libya, President Barack Obama insisted that the United States was part of a broad coalition.
As military operations reached the 3-month point, questions arose about the legality of Amer-
ican involvement.

The Constitution states that Con-
gress has the authority to declare
war, while it also obligates the
president to serve as commander
in chief of the armed forces. This
obligation has led many presidents
to engage in military acts without
congressional authorization or a
formal declaration of war. President
Obama claimed that his actions
were in accordance with the War
Powers Resolution of 1973, which
requires that the president notify
Congress of the use of force.

Below is an excerpt from the War
Powers Resolution. From Section 2:

The constitutional powers
of the President as Com-
mander-in-Chief to intro-
duce United States Armed
Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursu-
ant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or
possessions, or its armed forces.

From Section 3:

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before
introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circum-
stances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the
Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostili-
ties or have been removed from such situations.

According to the War Powers Resolution, a president who dispatches military units for any
reason must notify Congress within 48 hours of doing so. Congress then has 90 days to either
authorize the operation or demand that the units come home. In the case of Libya, President
Obama formally notified Congress of the U.S. military’s participation. However, the speaker
of the House, Republican John Boehner, demanded that the president explain the mission

Previous members of President Obama’s administra-
tion, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, testified
before the House Armed Services Committee on Ameri-
can military operations in Libya on March 31, 2011.
Some congressional members contend that U.S. involve-
ment in this operation violates the War Powers Act.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 108 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority

to Congress and obtain its authorization to continue. The president insisted that he had no
obligation to seek authorization before launching the air strikes because these actions were
“hostilities” and not acts of war. This response angered many in Congress.

As the War Powers Resolution placed the ball in Congress’s court, the House of Representa-
tives voted down a bill that would authorize the president to continue American involvement.
The president asserted that the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it inter-
fered with his commander-in-chief power. This episode raises questions about how much
authority the president has to make decisions in the commander-in-chief role as framed by
the Constitution.

In this chapter, we look at the American presidency and how it has evolved over time. The
Constitution grants the president formal authority that is limited by Congress. The extent to
which the president has any real power stems from the relationships that he or she estab-
lishes and cultivates. The Framers did not fully address the issue of presidential war power
because they were uncertain of what the president would do and they did not foresee all the
contingencies that might arise that would require the president to exercise war power.

5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority

The Framers of the Constitution created a presidency that would take direction from Con-
gress. The president is given several formal constitutional powers, most of which are checked
by Congress. Presidential power is intended to be used to preserve and protect the Constitu-
tion through the president’s expressed and inherent powers. Expressed powers refers to pow-
ers listed explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. Inherent powers refers to powers that have been
inferred from language in the U.S. Constitution. Together, expressed and inherent powers in
the Constitution establish the office of the presidency and give its occupant the authority to
preserve and protect the Constitution.

Article II of the Constitution establishes executive power and who may hold it: “The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II also establishes
the president’s formal authority, which includes being commander in chief of the U.S. armed
forces and chief executive. The president also has the authority to negotiate treaties, nomi-
nate persons for high-level appointed office, veto acts of Congress, and grant reprieves and
pardons. The language of the Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties as
long as two thirds of the Senate concurs. This example of checks and balances is referred to as
“advice and consent” in the U.S. Constitution. The Senate also has the power to confirm presi-
dential nominations to high-level office. The veto power, which is the power of the president
to reject bills passed by Congress, is found in Article I.

Authority as Commander in Chief

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States.” This means that the president must authorize any use

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 109 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority

of force by the military. It does not mean that he or she will personally lead troops into battle
like a medieval European king. The requirement that presidents authorize the use of force
establishes the sacred principle of civilian control of the armed forces. If the military estab-
lishment were equal in power to other institutions, it could easily overthrow the civilian gov-
ernment and thus upend one of the hallmarks of modern democratic governance, the peace-
ful transfer of power.

Civilian control, at least in the early
days of the American republic, was
ensured by the absence of large
standing armies. In fact, the Consti-
tution mentions an army and navy
only because these were the only
two branches of the military that
existed when it was written. They
were separate departments, and
each was equal to the other. The
secretary of war and the secretary
of navy both sat in the president’s
Cabinet.

Today’s Cabinet includes a single
secretary of defense, but that posi-
tion was not created until after
World War II, with the passage of
the 1947 National Defense Act,

the law that created a unified Defense Department. Until that global conflict, the United States
called state militia—what are known today as National Guard units—into national service.
Much of the American fighting forces are still made up of National Guard units. They were
called up in 2001 when the nation went into Afghanistan, and again in 2003 when it went
into Iraq. Militia members of these units are normally under the command of their respective
governors, but once called, they are under the command of the president.

Use of the state militias for national service was formally adopted with the Militia Act of 1792,
which gave the president the authority, in the event or threat of an invasion, to call into ser-
vice as many troops from state militia as would be needed to repel the invasion. The president
would be able to call upon those militia companies that would be “most convenient to the
place of danger or scene of action.” This meant that if the country were invaded off the shore
of Maine, the president could call on militia companies in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,
and Massachusetts. Because they would be close to the place of invasion, they could respond
quickly. This would also give the states a role in defending the nation. Instead of having to
build national bases in all the states to house a standing army, the army would be formed as
needed. Less than a week after the Militia Act was passed, Congress passed a second Militia
Act of 1792, which required each able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and
45 to enroll in the militia of his respective state.

The organization of the country’s military forces fundamentally changed in the 20th century.
In 1903, Congress passed legislation to organize the various state militias into the current
National Guard system, which was to be administered jointly by the National Guard Bureau

Associated Press/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

President Obama speaks to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifically
establishes that the president is the commander in
chief of the armed forces.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 110 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority

and the U.S. Department of Defense. With passage of the 1916 National Defense Act, approxi-
mately one half of the U.S. Army’s available combat forces and approximately one third of its
support organizations were National Guard units.

To call the militia into service during a time of crisis is to rely on civilian defense and to
democratize the sense of sacrifice, a concept that still resonates today. As an example, when
the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991, it amassed around 500,000 troops on Iraq’s
border. Most of these troops were taken from state National Guard units. The United States
certainly could have used its professional national army, but by calling on state units, the
president gave all citizens a stake in the outcome.

Authority to Pardon

Article II, Section 2 also grants the president the authority to issue pardons. The president
“shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except
in cases of Impeachment.” This would seem to suggest that the president can pardon anyone
who has committed a federal crime.

Presidents may pardon convicted criminals who have already served part of their prison sen-
tence. The president might issue a partial pardon, which often amounts to a commutation
of a sentence, or pardon somebody who has long been a fugitive from justice. President Bill
Clinton, for example, pardoned Marc Rich, a financier charged with evading $48 million in
taxes and committing more than 50 counts of fraud. Rich had fled the country and was living
in Switzerland at the time of his indictment.

As another example, in 1974 President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon to Richard Nixon for
Nixon’s role in the Watergate cover-up, which meant that the former president could never be
charged for crimes related to Watergate. The Nixon pardon was viewed as an attempt to heal
a badly divided nation and move forward.

A president does not usually decide on pardons by him- or herself. Most of the time, he or
she does not know the person being pardoned. Rather, somebody may apply for a pardon, in
which case White House lawyers and the Justice Department study the matter and make a
recommendation.

Veto Authority

As a check on the power of the legislative branch, the Constitution gives the president the
authority to veto bills passed by Congress. One potential consequence of vetoes is that they
might invite Congress to respond, if Congress has the votes, by overriding the veto. An over-
ride is often seen as a political defeat for a president. Overrides are rare; only 7% of all vetoes
have been overridden since the beginning of the republic.

When the president vetoes a bill, the president must veto the entire bill and not parts of it; the
U.S. Constitution does not provide for what is called a line-item veto. Congress gave Presi-
dent Bill Clinton the line-item veto with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The law was soon
overturned by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). The Supreme Court

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 111 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.2 Presidential Elections

struck down the law because the act violates the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7),
which requires that bills passed by both houses of Congress be presented to the president
for his or her signature. In essence, the Presentment Clause outlines the legislative process,
which the Supreme Court argued was violated by giving the president the line-item veto.

Treaty Making and Effective War-Making Authority

Section 2 also says that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” This means
that the president can make treaties with other countries, but they are not binding on future
governments unless they are ratified by the U.S. Senate. A president may negotiate a treaty to
end a war, but the Senate may opt not to ratify it.

In the aftermath of World War I
(1914–1918), President Woodrow
Wilson sought to make the United
States a signatory to the Versailles
Treaty, which was the agreement
that effectively ended the war. Part
of the treaty was a call for the for-
mation of a new League of Nations,
an intergovernmental organiza-
tion that would foster peace and
international disarmament. Wilson
wanted the United States to join
this league, but some members of
Congress believed that it could lead
to U.S. involvement in conflicts that
did not concern the country. When
Wilson refused to compromise on
any parts of the treaty, the Senate
failed to ratify it, and Wilson never
recovered politically. When the
Senate refuses to ratify a treaty, it
puts the president and the nation
in a vulnerable position because it can be construed as a sign of weakness. Another country,
sensing that weakness, may view it as an opportunity to wage war against the United States.

5.2 Presidential Elections

In addition to stipulating presidential powers, Article II also sets forth guidelines for presi-
dential elections. For example, it states that the president “shall hold office during the term
of four years.” Presidential elections take place in two distinct phases. The first phase is the
nomination phase, which normally begins in January of presidential election years. Through a

Associated Press/Andrew Harnik

Members of anti-war group Code Pink show support
for President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which
was negotiated in the summer of 2015. The deal was
controversial because Republican lawmakers felt the
Obama administration had withheld information about
the deal in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s treaty
authority.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 112 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.2 Presidential Elections

series of primaries and caucuses run on a state-by-state basis, delegates are chosen to attend
party-nominating conventions. Following the conventions, the party nominees begin cam-
paigning for the general election that is held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday
in November.

Presidential Primaries

Although the nomination season begins in January, those seeking the presidency often begin
their quest as early as 2 years before a national election. Candidates may declare their inten-
tions to run a year in advance of the nomination season. During this time, they travel around
the country and meet voters, state party chairs, and potential donors. Running for office
entails a lot of retail politics, which involves candidates interacting with voters one on one,
such as by taking part in local events.

The season begins in earnest with the Iowa caucuses. During a caucus, individuals gather
for a few hours at a local meeting place and move to a section of the room designated for
their favorite candidate’s supporters. During this process, they can be challenged by another
candidate’s supporters. At the end of the exercise, the number of delegates apportioned to a
candidate is based on the percentage of support each receives.

Iowa does not produce many delegates, but, as the first state in the nomination season, it pro-
vides momentum going into bigger contests as an indicator of party support. The next contest
is the New Hampshire primary. Primaries are like elections in that polling places are open
for at least 12 hours and registered voters come to the polling place and vote as individuals.
There are two types of primaries. Closed primaries require that voters be registered with the
political party of the primary in which they are voting. Closed primaries exclude registered
independents. Open primaries allow registered voters, including registered independents, to
choose the party’s primary in which they would like to vote regardless of their party registra-
tion. As with caucuses, delegates are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote that
each candidate receives.

Candidates who win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary are often advantaged
in the early weeks of the nomination season because money follows winners. Candidates
who win either of these contests are able to draw significant contributions and media atten-
tion, which in turn help them to spend money on advertising in bigger contests that produce
more delegates. Those who do not fare well early in the season usually find it difficult to
raise money and will likely drop out. Raising funds is critical because a successful candidate
can spend more than $500 million. Voters living in states holding their primaries late in the
season will likely choose between just two candidates unless all but one candidate has with-
drawn from the race.

Each political party finishes the first part of the presidential election season during the sum-
mer of the election year with its nominating conventions. Each party nominates a president/
vice-president ticket based on the number of delegates received by the presidential candi-
dates. The presidential nominee is the person receiving the most delegates, and the presumed
nominee selects the vice-presidential candidate. The official campaign for president then
begins in September.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 113 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.2 Presidential Elections

The Electoral College

The president is elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. The Electoral Col-
lege is composed of electors from each state. The number of electors each state is allotted is
dictated in Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a num-
ber of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa-
tive . . . shall be appointed an elector.

There are a total of 538 electoral votes cast (including three for the District of Columbia), and
a candidate needs a simple majority—270—to win. For most states, the candidate who wins
the popular vote in that state wins that state’s electors. The only exceptions are the states of
Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote in each
state’s congressional district. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state also earns
two statewide votes.

Each candidate’s party signs up a slate of electors, who are then pledged to vote for that can-
didate. As an example, New York casts 29 electoral votes. In 2012, the two major candidates,
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, signed up slates of 29 electors each in the state (see Fig-
ure 5.1). Because Obama won the popular vote in New York, his slate voted in the Electoral
College and Romney’s slate did not. The winner-take-all system often results in candidates
earning a far higher percentage of electoral votes compared with the popular vote. For exam-
ple, in 1992, Bill Clinton earned 43% of the popular vote and President George H. W. Bush
earned 38%. (Independent candidate H. Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote but did not win
the popular vote in any state. This means that Perot did not win any Electoral College votes.)
Bill Clinton won the Electoral College vote with 69%; Clinton earned less than half of the
popular vote and more than two thirds of the Electoral College vote.

In choosing where to invest
resources, candidates and their
campaign organizations usually
choose states with close races
(often called battleground states).
They tend not to spend too much
time or money in states where they
are already likely to win or lose
that state’s Electoral College vote.
Because minority groups, whether
racial, ethnic, or religious, tend to
be concentrated in large, electoral
vote-rich states, the electoral sys-
tem provides representation for
these groups that they otherwise
might not enjoy. If they vote as a
group, they can form a voting bloc

Associated Press/Jacquelyn Martin

As president of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden
presided over the Electoral College vote count that
reelected President Barack Obama in 2012.

Figure 5.1: Electoral College map of 2012 election

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the
president by Congress and election by popular vote.

From “Electoral College map,” by G. Skidmore, 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg).

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 114 3/24/16 1:42 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg

Section 5.2 Presidential Elections
The Electoral College
The president is elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. The Electoral Col-
lege is composed of electors from each state. The number of electors each state is allotted is
dictated in Article II:
Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a num-
ber of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa-
tive . . . shall be appointed an elector.
There are a total of 538 electoral votes cast (including three for the District of Columbia), and
a candidate needs a simple majority—270—to win. For most states, the candidate who wins
the popular vote in that state wins that state’s electors. The only exceptions are the states of
Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote in each
state’s congressional district. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state also earns
two statewide votes.
Each candidate’s party signs up a slate of electors, who are then pledged to vote for that can-
didate. As an example, New York casts 29 electoral votes. In 2012, the two major candidates,
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, signed up slates of 29 electors each in the state (see Fig-
ure 5.1). Because Obama won the popular vote in New York, his slate voted in the Electoral
College and Romney’s slate did not. The winner-take-all system often results in candidates
earning a far higher percentage of electoral votes compared with the popular vote. For exam-
ple, in 1992, Bill Clinton earned 43% of the popular vote and President George H. W. Bush
earned 38%. (Independent candidate H. Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote but did not win
the popular vote in any state. This means that Perot did not win any Electoral College votes.)
Bill Clinton won the Electoral College vote with 69%; Clinton earned less than half of the
popular vote and more than two thirds of the Electoral College vote.
In choosing where to invest
resources, candidates and their
campaign organizations usually
choose states with close races
(often called battleground states).
They tend not to spend too much
time or money in states where they
are already likely to win or lose
that state’s Electoral College vote.
Because minority groups, whether
racial, ethnic, or religious, tend to
be concentrated in large, electoral
vote-rich states, the electoral sys-
tem provides representation for
these groups that they otherwise
might not enjoy. If they vote as a
group, they can form a voting bloc
Associated Press/Jacquelyn Martin
As president of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden
presided over the Electoral College vote count that
reelected President Barack Obama in 2012.
Figure 5.1: Electoral College map of 2012 election
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the
president by Congress and election by popular vote.
From “Electoral College map,” by G. Skidmore, 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg).

that can make or break the state for a candidate, because the winner of the state’s popular
vote (no matter how slim the margin) will win that state’s electoral vote in all but two states.

Still, there are those who maintain that the Electoral College system is not democratic. It
rarely happens that a candidate who wins the popular vote loses the Electoral College, but it
has happened four times, including 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In the presidential election
of 1876, Samuel Tilden, a Democrat from New York, won the popular vote over Republican
Rutherford B. Hayes from Ohio. The Electoral College vote was in question because Florida,
Louisiana, and South Carolina each sent two sets of electoral votes to Congress.

In 2000, Democratic Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote over Republican Texas Gov-
ernor George W. Bush. Gore was leading in the Electoral College on Election Day, although
the outcome in Florida was unknown. Without Florida’s 25 electoral votes, neither candidate
would have the needed 270 electoral votes to win (266 for Gore, 246 for Bush). The number
of total electoral votes cast was 537, and not 538, in 2000 because an elector from the Dis-
trict of Columbia abstained from voting in the Electoral College that year, although Florida’s
electoral votes would put either candidate over the top. After several recounts and an order
from the Florida Supreme Court to have a full recount, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the
recounting to stop. Bush was declared the winner, and Gore conceded defeat. Many Florida
voters, especially minorities, believed that their votes were not counted because of confusion

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 115 3/24/16 1:42 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg

Section 5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents

about ballot design, misplaced ballots, and other concerns. This election especially left a sour
aftertaste because it appeared to many that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the outcome of a
presidential election for the first time.

5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and
Foreign Policy Presidents

The president of the United States is the most important political leader in the country. When
the president speaks, the words carry weight and have influence. But the president’s influ-
ence is not even in all policy realms. Political scientist Aaron Wildavsky famously observed
that from a political standpoint, the nation is usually led by two presidents embodied in one
person. One is a domestic policy president, who tends to be weak, and the other is a foreign
policy president, who tends to be strong.

The Domestic Policy President

In the realm of domestic policy, Congress tends to dominate because Americans tend to be
more concerned about issues closer to home than they are about issues abroad. Because most
members of Congress are elected and reelected on the basis of local issues and their ability to
deliver goods back to their districts, Congress is reluctant to defer to the president on those
domestic issues. On the contrary, if a presidential agenda interferes with the interests of a
member’s constituency, that member may choose to vote against the president even if he or
she is of the same political party.

A domestic policy president is also reined in by changes in the composition of Congress. The
president’s party most often experiences losses in midterm congressional elections, which
weakens the presidential mandate. A mandate is the perception that an elected official can do
what he or she thinks the people want because of the popular support due to an electoral vic-
tory. Winning by a wide margin means a stronger mandate. Additionally, Congress members
winning reelection may be anxious about the next election and may less often support the
president’s agenda. In the midterm election of 2014, President Obama’s party lost 13 seats in
the House of Representatives and nine seats in the U.S. Senate. In losing those nine seats in the
Senate, the Democrats lost their majority party status. Midterm elections are best understood
in the context of surge and decline theory. Surge and decline theory argues that midterm con-
gressional elections, which are considered low stimulus because the general public pays less
attention compared with high-stimulus presidential elections, attract core voters. Core voters
tend to vote against the president’s party in midterm congressional elections. Consequently,
the president’s party tends to lose seats in both houses of Congress during midterm elections.
While the end result may be gridlock, it may also be viewed as an assertion of constitutional
checks and balances.

Still, the president is increasingly expected to play more of a role in domestic policy. During an
economic recession, when more people are out of work, the public tends to hold the president
responsible and expect that the president will pursue policies that create jobs. During the
Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt actively pursued policies to get the nation

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 116 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents

back to work. Following World War II, Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946, which
specified a greater role for the president in economic policy. To that end, the law established
the new office of the Council of Economic Advisors, a group that would monitor the economy
and prepare reports that the president would submit to Congress each year. This meant that
the president and his staff would be involved in planning the budget and, by extension, estab-
lishing the nation’s domestic policy priorities.

The president was to have more of a voice in domestic affairs, as his ability to appoint officials,
even to independent regulatory agencies, meant that he would be able to appoint those who
were sympathetic to his policy priorities. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says that the
president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the
Officers of the United States.” This means that the president is responsible for carrying out
laws and implementing policies and programs that have been passed by Congress. As this
responsibility falls on the president, the president’s role in domestic affairs only grows as
Congress creates more programs, especially when power and authority (also discussed in the
previous chapter) are delegated to the executive branch.

The Constitution gives the presi-
dent limited formal roles in the
legislative process (signing or veto-
ing legislation). However, presiden-
tial influence outside these formal
roles is critical to the legislative
process. For example, the Consti-
tution requires that the president
give Congress information on the
state of the union “from time to
time.” In modern times, the State of
the Union has become a televised
annual address to Congress. In hav-
ing the State of the Union address
televised, the president is using an
informal power, the power of per-
suasion, by encouraging the public
to pressure Congress to go along with the requests being outlined in the State of the Union.

The Foreign Policy President

In the realm of foreign affairs, presidents can often act with fewer congressional constraints
compared with domestic affairs for several reasons. For instance, the president is the face of
the nation when dealing with other countries. When it comes to negotiating treaties, there
can be only one president, not 535. Even though treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Sen-
ate to be ratified, senators tend to defer to the president on treaties because of the need for
the country to speak with one voice. Further, the public does not perceive foreign affairs to
affect their daily lives, so most people tend not to care about foreign affairs as much as they
do domestic issues. A Congress that defers to the president in foreign policy is not perceived
as shirking its representative function in the way that a Congress that defers to the president
in the domestic arena might be.

Associated Press/Charles Harappa

President Obama, with his Council of Economic Advi-
sors, speaks on financial reform in the wake of the eco-
nomic downturn of 2008.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 117 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.4 Presidential Power

Arguably, declaring war and raising armies go hand in hand with Congress’s primary power of
the purse. A declaration of war would require raising an army to wage that war, which in turn
would require a congressional appropriation, or spending bill. Still, much of the president’s
more expansive powers in foreign affairs are derived from presidential prerogative.

5.4 Presidential Power

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to clarify presidential power to avoid the poten-
tial abuse of power that might be found in a single executive. The Framers’ previous experi-
ence with a single national executive occurred when King George III abused his power over
the colonists. Consequently, the Framers feared the potential for abuse from a single execu-
tive, which motivated them to list the specific powers of the president. Over time, though,
presidents have argued that the U.S. Constitution suggests that the president has more pow-
ers in order to ensure fulfilling the president’s responsibilities.

Presidential Prerogative

Presidential prerogative is an implied power that enables a president to expand his or her
authority in ways not specifically stated in the Constitution. In essence, presidential preroga-
tive is the notion that the president may act outside the power specified in the U.S. Constitu-
tion. Implied powers emerge from various elements found in Article II. For example, though it
states that the president should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” it does not
specify how the president should use his or her constitutional power to ensure that the laws
are enforced. Similarly, the Constitution does not outline the powers and expectations associ-
ated with the president’s commander-in-chief role. Presidential prerogative may be inter-
preted in much the same way that one might interpret Congress’s Necessary and Proper
Clause, which allows Congress to take actions ensuring that its enumerated powers are car-
ried out.

Associated Press/Susan Walsh

President George W. Bush speaks in support of the
2001 USA PATRIOT Act, which was enacted as part of
his War on Terror. The act allowed federal law enforce-
ment to arrest those suspected of terrorism and hold
them indefinitely without trial.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 118 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.4 Presidential Power

Following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, President
George W. Bush declared a “war
on terror.” (Congress has the sole
power to declare war; in making
this declaration, the president was
seeking public and congressional
support in responding to the ter-
rorist attacks.) President Bush
made it clear that the United States
would go after terrorists around
the world as well as those countries
that harbored terrorists. Bush’s
approach initially led to undeclared
war in Afghanistan because ter-
rorist training camps were located
there, and then the undeclared
war in Iraq due to the assumption
that the Iraqi government was also
supporting terrorism. Bush justified his actions as a legitimate exercise of presidential pre-
rogative because of his obligation to preserve and protect the Constitution. Earlier terrorist
attacks against the United States, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, had
been treated as criminal justice matters. The 2001 attack was of a different magnitude. Nearly
3,000 people died.

Political Power

Presidential prerogative has had the effect of expanding the scope of presidential power over
time. Historian Arthur Schlesinger argued that through the use of presidential prerogative,
particularly during periods of emergency, presidents have taken on imperial characteristics
(Schlesinger, 2004). Even with presidential prerogative, though, the president must be able to
persuade others and wield political power to be truly effective.

Power as Persuasion
More than 50 years ago, political scientist Richard Neustadt, who had served in President John
F. Kennedy’s administration, defined presidential power as the power to persuade (Neustadt,
1991). Likewise, members of Congress are elected separately from the president, and the
president has no control over their decisions. All the president can do is attempt to convince
others that his or her ideas are preferable to the alternatives. A president who can get others
to do what he or she wants through persuasion can be said to truly possess power.

The Importance of Public Support
A president’s ability to persuade will be enhanced if the president is popular with the public
and his or her party holds the majority party in one or both houses of Congress. Popularity
is important because the president can point to it as a reason why critics should not be so

Most of what the Constitution says about the president’s authority pertains to foreign policy,
whereas most of what it says about the authority of Congress pertains to domestic policy,
although both branches enjoy significant powers in both policy areas. With the federal divi-
sion of power and authority between the states and the national government, the Framers
assumed that states would naturally be responsible for domestic policy and the national
government would be responsible for foreign affairs. The Constitution assigns the president,
and not Congress, to be commander in chief of the armed forces. The president also has the
express authority to conduct foreign affairs by appointing and maintaining ambassadors and
counselors abroad, and to negotiate treaties with other countries. Congress can hold hearings
and request reports from the president, but it does not have much foreign policy authority
other than to ratify already negotiated treaties, raise armies, and declare war.
Arguably, declaring war and raising armies go hand in hand with Congress’s primary power of
the purse. A declaration of war would require raising an army to wage that war, which in turn
would require a congressional appropriation, or spending bill. Still, much of the president’s
more expansive powers in foreign affairs are derived from presidential prerogative.
5.4 Presidential Power
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to clarify presidential power to avoid the poten-
tial abuse of power that might be found in a single executive. The Framers’ previous experi-
ence with a single national executive occurred when King George III abused his power over
the colonists. Consequently, the Framers feared the potential for abuse from a single execu-
tive, which motivated them to list the specific powers of the president. Over time, though,
presidents have argued that the U.S. Constitution suggests that the president has more pow-
ers in order to ensure fulfilling the president’s responsibilities.
Presidential Prerogative
Presidential prerogative is an implied power that enables a president to expand his or her
authority in ways not specifically stated in the Constitution. In essence, presidential preroga-
tive is the notion that the president may act outside the power specified in the U.S. Constitu-
tion. Implied powers emerge from various elements found in Article II. For example, though it
states that the president should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” it does not
specify how the president should use his or her constitutional power to ensure that the laws
are enforced. Similarly, the Constitution does not outline the powers and expectations associ-
ated with the president’s commander-in-chief role. Presidential prerogative may be inter-
preted in much the same way that one might interpret Congress’s Necessary and Proper
Clause, which allows Congress to take actions ensuring that its enumerated powers are car-
ried out.
Associated Press/Susan Walsh
President George W. Bush speaks in support of the
2001 USA PATRIOT Act, which was enacted as part of
his War on Terror. The act allowed federal law enforce-
ment to arrest those suspected of terrorism and hold
them indefinitely without trial.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 119 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.5 Executive Branch Organization

quick to dismiss what he or she has to say. Party support in Congress is important because the
president can appeal to party loyalty to put his or her agenda forward. The president’s ability
to persuade members of his or her own party in Congress is also enhanced by his or her abil-
ity to campaign on their behalf for reelection, especially if the president enjoys widespread
public support.

But a president’s ability to persuade can easily be hindered by a drop in public support or by
significant congressional midterm election losses in his or her own party. Presidential party
losses in midterm congressional elections are often taken as a rejection of the president’s pre-
vious 2 years of governing. President Bill Clinton, who was elected in 1992 with Democratic
majorities in both houses of Congress, lost both houses in the 1994 midterm election. His
party lost 50 seats in the House of Representatives and eight seats in the Senate. Losses of this
magnitude make it more difficult for a president to use the power of persuasion.

5.5 Executive Branch Organization

The Constitution provides for a president, vice president, and executive departments but is
silent on presidential staff. Yet the president’s responsibilities have increased greatly since
the office was created. The role of the vice president has become further defined. The Consti-
tution does not identify any powers or responsibilities of the vice president, although mod-
ern presidents have extended greater vice-presidential involvement in their administrations,
which also adds to already increasing executive staff needs. There has been significant growth
in the executive as to both breadth (the type of office) and expertise and number of staff per-
sons, in order to accommodate increasing presidential and vice-presidential responsibilities
in the modern era.

Cabinet

The president’s Cabinet is composed of the heads of executive branch departments, most
of whom carry the title of secretary. The term was coined by newspaper reporters during
George Washington’s presidency to refer to his four department heads: the secretary of state,
the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of the army, and the attorney general, who serves
as the “secretary” of the Justice Department. There are now 15 Cabinet-level departments,
which include Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Defense, Labor, Interior, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Education, and, most recently, Home-
land Security. The vice president and the ambassador to the United Nations have also been
invited to join the president’s Cabinet.

The role of the Cabinet is largely undefined. A president may seek counsel from individual
Cabinet members as well as call for regular meetings. Presidents will also use their Cabinets
to demonstrate that they are not acting alone.

Executive Office of the President

The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of staff members reporting directly to
the president and multiple support staff levels. It is generally headed by a White House chief

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 120 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President

of staff. The EOP originated in 1936, when President Franklin Roosevelt established a Com-
mittee on Administrative Management to evaluate administrative procedures in the executive
branch. The concern in establishing the committee was that the business of government had
become so vast that it was too much for one person to oversee.

The original EOP, formally created by executive order in 1939, was to consist of six adminis-
trative assistants to the president, along with three advisory bodies: the National Resources
Planning Board, the Liaison Office for Personnel Management, and the Office of Government
Reports. By the time Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, the EOP had around 1,700 full-time
staff members. Today, the EOP consists of the president, plus 11 other councils and offices:

• Council of Economic Advisors
• Council on Environmental Quality
• Executive Residence
• National Security Council
• Office of Administration
• Office of Management and Budget
• Office of National Drug Control Policy
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Office of the United States Trade Representative
• Office of the Vice President
• White House Office (includes the president’s immediate staff of advisors)

White House Staff

The White House staff is made up of analysts and advisors, such as communications advi-
sors, political advisors, the press secretary, speech writers, legislative aides, and the White
House physician. The White House staff is usually composed of people the president can trust.
Unlike Cabinet members, a staff member does not need to be confirmed by the Senate.

The White House staff is organized within several office units, each of which employs addi-
tional staff members. The White House staff also includes persons on temporary assignment
who are sent from other executive branch agencies and departments to work in the White
House. The size of the White House staff has grown from a few dozen persons to several hun-
dred more recently.

5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President

We have already noted that foreign policy–focused presidents tend to be stronger than domes-
tic policy–focused presidents. During times of war and international conflict, it is common for
presidents to assume greater authority and claim greater power and discretion. As outlined
earlier, presidents exercising more discretion during wartime and international conflict often
begins with presidents exercising their prerogative. Add to that a tendency on the part of
Congress to defer to the president on foreign policy–related matters, and it is apparent that
presidents often have free rein during times of international crisis.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 121 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President

As we will discuss in this section, even when the constitutionality of presidential actions has
been challenged during wartime, the Supreme Court has tended to side with the president.
Scholars suggest that this is because the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the
country being unified, especially during wartime. Once these conflicts end, the Supreme Court
will often reassert the constitutional separation of powers.

Imperial Presidency

We noted earlier Arthur Schlesing-
er’s argument that the use of presi-
dential prerogative, coupled with
Congress’s tendency to defer to
the president in foreign affairs, has
at times led to an imperial presi-
dency. By this phrase, Schlesinger
meant a president who assumes he
or she is above the law and can do
what he or she pleases, whether it
is because he or she can claim that
there is a crisis and subsequent
need to exercise authority, because
he or she won the election by such
a large margin that he or she can
claim a mandate, or because of
some other reason. Schlesinger was
considering Richard Nixon, who
famously observed in an interview with David Frost that an action that is, by law, illegal is
“not illegal” if the president does it. It was not uncommon for Nixon to invoke a national
emergency to justify exercising his prerogative. At other times, Nixon called attention to a
“silent majority” of the public who supported him but were not vocal, thereby suggesting that
a Congress that opposed him did so at its own peril.

Wartime Dictatorship

During times of war, presidents have taken actions to limit individual rights on the grounds
that such actions protect the public interest. This has sometimes been called a “wartime dic-
tatorship.” Among the most notable occurred during World War II, when President Franklin
Roosevelt ordered the quarantine of Japanese citizens and U.S. citizens of Japanese descent
with an executive order. Suspected of being loyal to Japan, these persons were rounded up in
California, the state of Washington, and Oregon and brought to detention camps or subjected
to a curfew that limited their ability to work and otherwise perform ordinary tasks outside
the home. Two thirds of these persons were American citizens, a large percentage of whom
were born in the United States or whose parents were born in the United States. These limi-
tations on individual citizens’ freedom were challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. For
example, Gordon Hirabayashi was a university student who had never visited Japan and was
never suspected of disloyalty to the United States. Nevertheless, he was convicted of disobey-
ing a military curfew on the grounds that the curfew was a legitimate defensive measure
during wartime. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s conviction in Hirabayashi v.

John Bryson/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images

In a 1977 interview with David Frost, former President
Richard M. Nixon explained his view of the imperial
presidency.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 122 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President

United States (1943). In Korematsu
v. United States (1944), the Court
found that forcing U.S. citizens of
Japanese descent into internment
camps during World War II was a
legitimate exercise of presidential
power, justified during times of
“emergency and peril.”

Once World War II drew to a close,
the Supreme Court would defer less
to the president’s actions to limit
individual rights. In 1988, Presi-
dent Ronald Reagan signed legisla-
tion offering a formal apology and
compensation to surviving victims
of the internment camps.

Use of Military Tribunals

During times of emergency, many
American presidents have sought
to use military tribunals to try
enemy combatants. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the launching
of the military action against Afghanistan, the question arose about what to do with enemy
combatants captured by American soldiers. According to the Geneva Convention on war,
captured enemy soldiers are to be considered prisoners of war and held in prison camps until
the end of the conflict, at which point they are to be sent home. Suspected terrorists, how-
ever, are neither soldiers, as they are not fighting for a nation state, nor civilians. Can enemy
combatants be tried in military courts? Critics argue that to do so would not only violate the
Geneva Convention but contradict basic constitutional guarantees. Defenders of the policy
point to precedent, the most notable being Ex Parte Quirin in 1942.

This case involved four German marines who came ashore on Long Island, New York, from
a submarine with orders to sabotage American war industries. After changing into civilian
clothes and burying their uniforms and explosives, they headed to New York City. Several days
later, another four marines came ashore in Florida with similar orders. The leader of the New
York group then defected to the FBI, and the remaining seven were rounded up, tried, and
convicted by a military commission specially appointed by President Roosevelt under a broad
claim of emergency authority. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the “Nazi saboteurs,” as they
came to be known, claimed that they should be tried in civilian court because they were not
wearing their uniforms when arrested. The government argued that they were enemy aliens
who entered the country as belligerents. The Court sided with the president, noting that

the detention and trial of petitioners—ordered by the President in the
declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of
war and of grave public danger—are not to be set aside by the courts without
the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of
Congress constitutionally enacted.

Everett Collection/SuperStock

The Japanese internment camp at Manzanar, California,
in 1943. The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens of
Japanese ancestry might constitute a security risk, and
therefore forcing them into internment camps was a
legitimate wartime action.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 123 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.7 Limiting Presidential Power

Suspects who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government are con-
sidered enemy combatants and are not then entitled to use civilian courts. Since 2001, this
has become a tricky question because the U.S. war on terror is levied against paramilitary
terrorist groups that are not employed or otherwise sponsored by a government.

Recall that the USA PATRIOT Act
allowed the executive to round up
suspected terrorists in the United
States and detain them without
access to attorneys. In the 2004
case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court
addressed whether such detention
was legal. The case was brought by
the father of Yaser Esam Hamdi,
who wanted to know what charges
his son faced. Because Hamdi
was being held in a military facil-
ity, the case constituted a request
that Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld produce the accused and
announce the charges. In this case,
the Supreme Court was not ready to
give the office of the president the
same authority it had had during
World War II. On one level, the case
was different from that of the Ger-

man saboteurs because the saboteurs were not U.S. citizens. On another level, the situations
were similar because both involved persons labeled enemy combatants and thus should be
viewed similarly.

The Court held that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his or her classification as an
enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his or her classification and a
fair opportunity to rebut the government’s claims. The Court held that circumstances might
also dictate that “enemy proceedings” may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential
to burden the executive at a time of ongoing military conflict. The Court concluded by observ-
ing, “There remains the possibility that the standards we have articulated could be met by an
appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal.” A president in a time of
war, then, has the authority to use military tribunals as an emergency measure. The problem
remains, however, that because it was a “war on terror” being fought, and not a war declared
against any nation, there was a potential that it could continue indefinitely.

5.7 Limiting Presidential Power

As the preceding discussions of both presidential prerogative and wartime presidents show,
a president can assume a great deal of authority and become quite powerful unless the other
branches of government impose restraints. Historically, the balance of power between the

Associated Press/Dana Verkouteren

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that,
in time of war, the president may use military tribunals
for emergency purposes. The problem with the ruling
is that because of the War on Terror, tribunals could go
on indefinitely.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 124 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.7 Limiting Presidential Power

president and Congress has swung back and forth. Often, after periods of strong presidential
authority or perceptions that a president has exceeded the bounds of prerogative, Congress
responds with attempts to control the president’s power. There have been occasions when
Congress has passed presidency-curbing legislation to reassert checks and balances. The
two most notable examples were the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the 1974 Budget and
Impoundment Control Act.

War Powers Resolution

The War Powers Resolution of 1973, introduced at the beginning of this chapter, was intended
to make the president more accountable to Congress when it comes to using presidential
war power. Presidents have seen their commander-in-chief role to include responding to
attacks with force as essential to their obligations to preserve and protect the Constitution.
As outlined in the vignette that opened this chapter, Congress can fail to pass authorization.
In the case of Libya, Congress also voted down a bill to stop funding, perhaps recognizing that
pulling the plug would have disastrous implications for the United States’ image abroad. In
the end, President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution, claiming that it was unconstitu-
tional. Congress’s response was to override the veto, and the War Powers Resolution remains
in place today. Still, presidents have uniformly called the War Powers Resolution unconstitu-
tional because it infringes on their commander-in-chief function.

The last time that a president sought a declaration of war was on December 8, 1941, against
Japan. Since then, presidents have used their commander-in-chief power to wage war absent
a formal declaration of war. In some cases, such as the wars in Korea (1950–1953) and Viet-
nam (1961–1975), presidents have circumvented the need for a formal declaration by label-
ing the conflicts “police actions.” In Vietnam, President Johnson did seek and received a con-
gressional resolution to respond to an attack on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.
The deeply unpopular war, while undeclared, was only exacerbated with President Nixon’s
secret bombings in Cambodia and elsewhere beginning in 1969.

The Budget and Impoundment Control Act

The Budget and Impoundment Control Act was Congress’s response to Richard Nixon’s
practice of refusing to spend authorized and appropriated monies for programs that he did
not support. Nixon, who opposed the social spending programs of the 1960s, would request
less money for these programs while Congress would respond by appropriating more. Nixon
then impounded the difference. The effect of this practice was to use impoundment as a form
of line-item veto. Historically, impoundment had been considered a sound fiscal practice
because it enabled a president to move funds from over-funded to under-funded programs,
or to reduce spending so that the government would not run a deficit.

Like the War Powers Resolution, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act is about presiden-
tial accountability to Congress. Title X of the Act expressly forbids the president from impound-
ing funds, although the president can defer spending funds for 45 days. Congress has the right
to veto that deferment, which means that the funds would have to be spent as appropriated.
If Congress fails to act within 45 days, the deferment continues indefinitely, which means,

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 125 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

5.8 Presidential Character

in effect, that the funds have been impounded. The president can pursue another course by
requesting that Congress rescind the amount of money appropriated for a program over what
was initially requested. If Congress passes a rescission bill within 45 days, the funds are also
effectively impounded. If Congress fails to act, the money must be spent as appropriated. This
measure also created a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to offer independent analyses of
budgets proposed by the president. The CBO was designed to be a counterweight to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House.

Impeaching a President

The Constitution outlines the impeachment process as means of controlling the president.
Impeachment is the first step in a formal mechanism by which Congress can remove a presi-
dent from office. To be removed from office, the president must be convicted by the Senate of
“high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is often understood to mean a constitutional crisis
where Congress believes that the president is usurping Congress’s powers or is refusing to
abide by Congress’s wishes.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained that impeachment deals with matters that
have violated the public trust:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the
misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of
some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be
denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately
to the society itself.

In using the term “political,” Hamilton might be alluding to the separation of powers. When the
president usurps the authority of Congress, the president has committed the political crime
of violating the separation of powers. When Congress investigated the break-in at Democratic
Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel and the possible cover-up by the White House, it
often requested information from the president. Nixon typically refused to hand over such
information, claiming that it was a matter of national security. Congress tried to secure the
information by going to court at times to force the president to do so. The House of Repre-
sentatives Judiciary Committee voted to impeach President Nixon. Following a court order to
turn over the White House tapes, President Nixon resigned before he could be impeached by
the full House and tried in the Senate.

5.8 Presidential Character

The president is the nation’s head of state and head of government, as well as a world leader.
Consequently, much is made about a president’s character and what that character says about
the president’s ability to lead. Political scientist James David Barber (2015) has argued that
the president’s character affects how the president handles his or her various roles, which
will affect how the president works with Congress, responds to international issues, interacts
with the public, and works with the Cabinet and the White House staff. There are four distinct

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 126 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 5.8 Presidential Character

character types based on two questions: First, is the president actively involved in his or her
presidency (active) or does he or she delegate responsibilities to others (passive)? Second, is
the president happy being president (positive) or is he or she generally unhappy in how he
or she engages with the office (negative)? Barber’s work focuses on presidents beginning in
the 20th century. The four character types are active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive,
and passive-negative.

Active-Positive

Active-positive presidents come into office with an active policy agenda and set out to achieve
it through hard work. These presidents have a positive outlook on life and are very energetic.
Examples of active-positive presidents include John F. Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt. They
were optimistic, especially Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and they were ready to
work with members of Congress to get their agendas passed.

Active-Negative

Active-negative presidents also come into
office with good ideas, energy, and a desire to
accomplish great things, but something in their
personality brings them down and results in
policy and political failures. Barber considered
Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Rich-
ard Nixon to be examples of active-negative
presidents.

Passive-Positive

Passive-positive presidents are often viewed
as caretakers who do not come to office with
any great enthusiasm but might rise to the occa-
sion during a time of crisis. According to Barber,
passive-positive presidents are responders and
not initiators or pushers. These presidents like
to accentuate the positive and be cheerleaders:
“In the Presidency they are, in many ways, nice
guys who finished first, only to discover that not
everyone is a nice guy” (Barber, 2015).

Passive-positive presidents often seek the office
because electoral victory represents personal
affirmation and boosts their self-esteem. Barber
offered Warren G. Harding and Ronald Reagan
as passive-positive presidents.

President Woodrow Wilson, who served
from 1913 to 1921, was considered an
active-negative president. He came to
office with an active domestic policy
agenda. However, his refusal to com-
promise with Republican senators led
to the failed ratification of the Treaty of
Versailles.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 127 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

Passive-Negative

Passive-negative presidents do not really want to be president but will serve out of a sense
of duty if called upon by their nation. Examples of passive-negative presidents include Calvin
Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower.

Does Character Matter?

There are many who argue that presidential character is important, although it is not always
clear that one can know a candidate’s character before the president takes office. Yet there are
those who choose not to focus on political character and instead look to moral character as
a good indicator of electability. If a president is not trustworthy, it may be extremely difficult
for the president to form working relationships with members of Congress, and the end result
may be inability to lead.

Ultimately, the issue of character speaks to whether the person is really fit to be president.
Other than a minimum age, residency, and that one is a natural-born citizen, there are no
formal constitutional requirements for office. In many cases, voters choose a candidate based
on a perception of whether this person comes across as presidential. Being president, in the
minds of most, may mean acting appropriately, having good character, being dignified and
trustworthy, and to some extent appearing to be above the political fray.

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
The U.S. Constitution grants the president the formal authority to be commander in chief of
the armed forces, to make appointments and negotiate treaties subject to the consent of the
Senate, to issue pardons, and to veto legislation. Beyond that, it has been up to presidents to
carve out their own roles and define for themselves the scope of their power.

Because the Constitution specifically requires the president to preserve and protect the Con-
stitution while it is silent as to what that means, presidents have inferred authority on the
basis of prerogative. Historically, presidents have used prerogative to expand their powers,
and in some cases to take on imperial qualities as president. A president’s power is limited
by factors that include the president’s ability to persuade. During times of crisis and in the
realm of foreign affairs, presidents tend to enjoy greater authority and power. At the same
time, there are mechanisms by which Congress can control presidents and curb their power.
Presidential power has been curbed at times through legislation and at other times by a large
loss of seats of the president’s party in Congress, especially during midterm elections.

Key Ideas to Remember

• Article II establishes formal presidential powers such as commander in chief, par-
doning, treaty making, and executing the laws of the land, but it also leaves much of
the president’s power undefined.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 128 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

• Presidents enjoy prerogative because the Constitution is silent on several issues.
If the Constitution does not expressly forbid the president from doing something,
the president may take actions not outlined in the Constitution as a matter of
prerogative.

• Ultimately, the basis of presidential power is political. It is the president’s ability to
persuade others to do what the president believes is right. Presidents are often said
to lack power when they are unsuccessful in their efforts to persuade.

• Presidents are often said to have more power in foreign policy than in domestic
policy. In foreign policy, there is a greater tendency for Congress to defer to the
president and in domestic policy a greater tendency for Congress to check what the
president does.

• The presidency is larger than the president as an individual; the presidency includes
the president, the vice president, the Executive Office of the President, the White
House staff, and the Cabinet.

• During times of emergency, presidents have tended to exercise their prerogative to
the point of becoming imperial and, during times of war, even dictatorial.

• Congress can control the power of presidents through hearings, legislation, and
impeachment.

• Presidential elections in the United States are unique in that they are long, drawn-
out processes and take place on a state-by-state basis.

• In selecting a president, voters often consider a candidate’s character, which might
suggest something about how that person may perform in office if elected.

Questions to Consider

1. What does it mean for the president to be commander in chief ?
2. By some accounts, the president might be the most powerful person in the world,

and by others that person may be the weakest. Which do you think is the stronger
argument, and why?

3. By what mechanisms can Congress limit presidential power?
4. Were it possible to understand presidents’ personality types prior to an election,

would we be able to predict how they would behave in office? Why or why not?

Key Terms

active-negative Describes the type of presi-
dent who comes to office with good ideas
and energy but is ultimately prone to failure
due to personality traits.

active-positive Describes the type of presi-
dent who comes to office with optimism,
energy, an active policy agenda, and a posi-
tive outlook.

appropriation A spending bill in Congress.

battleground states States that are not
dominated by a single party such that the
state’s Electoral College vote cannot be pre-
dicted in presidential elections.

Budget and Impoundment Control
Act Statute that makes it more difficult for
the president to impound funds.

Cabinet Collection of executive branch
department heads who may advise the
president when asked.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 129 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

caucus A meeting of individuals to choose a
candidate for office.

domestic policy president A president
who is focused on issues and activity within
U.S. borders; considered to be generally
weaker because the president is granted less
power in domestic policy relative to Con-
gress; one of two versions of the American
president according to political scientist
Aaron Wildavsky.

Executive Office of the President
(EOP) Created in 1939, a division that con-
sists of White House staff and other advisors
who help the president direct the activities
of the executive branch.

foreign policy president A president who
is focused on the United States’ strategy in
dealing with other nations; considered to be
generally stronger because the president is
granted more power in foreign policy rela-
tive to Congress; one of two versions of the
American president according to political
scientist Aaron Wildavsky.

Geneva Convention An international
understanding about the rules of war
between nation states.

imperial presidency That of a president
who assumes that he or she is above the law
and can do as he or she pleases.

inherent powers Presidential powers
inferred from the Constitution.

line-item veto When a chief executive can
reject portions of a bill rather than having to
veto the entire bill.

mandate When an elected official believes
he or she enjoys broad popular support
because of the size of his or her electoral vic-
tory, and this support allows the official to
do what he or she thinks the people want.

National Defense Act The law that created
a unified Defense Department.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) An intergovernmental military
alliance providing collective defense for its
28 member nations.

passive-negative Describes the type of
president who does not want to be president
but serves out of a sense of duty.

passive-positive Describes the type of
president who seeks office because he or she
wants the adoration of the public.

presidency-curbing legislation Legisla-
tion passed by Congress in an attempt to
control presidential power and reassert
checks and balances.

retail politics A campaign style where the
candidate focuses on interacting with indi-
vidual voters face to face, such as by taking
part in local events.

War Powers Resolution The requirement
that the president notify Congress of the use
of force.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 130 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

Further Reading
Barber, J. D. (2015). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House (4th ed.). London, UK:

Routledge.

DiClerico, R. E. (2012). The contemporary American president. London, UK: Routledge.

Edwards, G. (2012). The strategic president: Persuasion and opportunity in presidential leadership. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Fisher, L. (2014). Constitutional conflicts between Congress and the president (6th ed.). Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas.

Fisher, L., & Harriger, K. (2013). American constitutional law: Constitutional structures, separated powers and
federalism (10th ed., Vol. 1). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Mansfield, H. C. (1993). Taming the prince: The ambivalence of modern executive power. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Nelson, M. (2013). The presidency and the political system (10th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Neustadt, R. E. (1991). Presidential power and the modern presidency (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Pious, R. M. (1979). The American presidency. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pyle, C. H., & Pious, R. M. (1984). The president, Congress, and the Constitution: Power and legitimacy in American
politics. New York, NY and London, UK: The Free Press.

Schlesinger, A. M. Jr. (2004). The imperial presidency. New York, NY: Mariner Books.

Skowronek, S. (1997). The politics presidents make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA
and London, UK: Belknap Press.

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 131 3/24/16 1:42 PM

fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 132 3/24/16 1:42 PM

6 The Executive Branch

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the history and evolution of the federal bureaucracy.
• Analyze the differences between political and civil service administration.
• Describe the rise of the civil service system.
• Describe the essential functions of bureaucracy.
• Analyze differences between various types of agencies and departments within the bureaucracy.
• Describe how the political branches of government attempt to control the bureaucracy and

ensure accountability.
• Evaluate the relationship among bureaucracy, Congress, and interest groups.
• Analyze the relationship between the nature and structure of American bureaucracy and Ameri-

can political culture.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 133 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy

Upon taking office in January 2009, President Obama appointed several “czars,” White House
counselors tasked with particular policy responsibilities, to oversee several policy areas. Crit-
ics charged that the president was attempting to circumvent the bureaucratic process by run-
ning things from the White House, rather than through the traditional executive branch
departments. Critics also charged that by appointing czars who would work in the White
House, rather than as assistant secretaries in the various departments, the president was
avoiding the appointment process, which requires Senate confirmation. President Obama’s
actions were viewed as an attempt to avoid legislative oversight, as these czars could not eas-
ily be summoned to testify before Congress, nor could the products of their work be subjected
to the Freedom of Information Act.

The roots of the czar concept lie
in the 1939 Brownlow Commit-
tee report, which brought about
a reorganization of the executive
branch that included the creation
of the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent (EOP), which led to a greater
concentration of policymaking and
oversight of agencies and White
House departments.

Presidents with active policy agen-
das often believe they can achieve
better results if they do not have to
rely on a large federal bureaucracy.
Although the president is both chief
executive and chief operating offi-
cer of the executive branch, the fed-
eral government is a vast organiza-
tion of several million employees,

many of whom are protected by certain rules. A president can control his or her advisors in
the White House because they serve at his or her pleasure, but he or she has no such author-
ity over the bureaucracy. While the president can remove department and agency appointees,
there are often political consequences to doing so. To be successful with Congress, presidents
need the bureaucracy to implement their policy agendas.

In this chapter, we look at the bureaucracy. We examine the concept of a bureaucracy, how it
developed in the United States, what it does, and how it is held accountable to the public.

6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy

The federal bureaucracy is the structure of administrative agencies and departments in the
executive branch that is responsible for delivering public goods and services. For instance, the
Social Security Administration delivers retirement funds to older adults. The bureaucracy is
also responsible for implementing laws. While Congress and the president establish intent to
do something by enacting legislation, the bureaucracy must make it happen. As an example,
both houses of Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the president enacted

Associated Press

President Obama appointed Carol Browner his energy
czar in October 2009. The office was abolished in 2011.
Presidents appoint czars for the sake of having more
policy control concentrated in the White House.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 134 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy

it into law by signing the legislation. Yet the responsibility for implementing the law belongs
to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an executive branch Cabinet-level
department through the delegation of authority, which was briefly discussed in Chapter 4.
Delegation of authority occurs when Congress grants authority to an executive branch depart-
ment or agency for a specific task. (Authority for this particular law is also delegated to state
governments, as they are responsible for implementing various features of the law.) The fed-
eral bureaucracy is the part of the government responsible for implementing laws passed by
the president and Congress, and, as appropriate, executive orders signed by the president and
case law as determined by Supreme Court decisions. The nature and magnitude of the execu-
tive branch’s implementation authority has resulted in a large and complex bureaucracy that
includes Cabinet-level departments (discussed in Chapter 5) and several other agencies and
offices responsible for implementing the law. The work of the federal government must be
well organized in order to ensure that the will of the people, as reflected by congressional,
presidential, and judicial actions, is carried out. Yet the magnitude of the work warrants a
complex network of offices and agencies to fulfill their responsibilities.

Defining Bureaucracy

The term bureaucracy comes from the French term bureau, meaning department. Today we
use the term to mean the breaking down of administration into departments that have a spe-
cific purpose. The federal bureaucracy is structured to carry out the law in a politically neu-
tral fashion. A large number of government employees function outside the political realm
and are not hired or fired based on election results. The purpose of the bureaucracy is to
establish an administrative framework to implement the decisions made through the political
process.

Successful bureaucracies are often organized accord-
ing to principles first articulated by sociologist Max
Weber. Weber (1947) suggested that a bureaucracy
was the highest form of efficient administrative struc-
ture in that it was organized to achieve a set of objec-
tives at the least cost. The characteristics that Weber
associated with bureaucracy are that it is based on
principles of full and official jurisdictional areas and
a division of labor. Bureaucracies are also ordered by
rules, laws, or administrative regulation, which ensure
that it will not operate in an arbitrary manner. The
regular activities of the bureaucracy are distributed in
the form of official duties, while the bureaucracy has
the authority to give commands based on rules. Addi-
tionally, a bureaucracy has provisions for the regular
and continuous fulfillment of officials’ stated duties,
and only those possessing generally regulated qualifi-
cations are to be employed.

These principles are found in the modern Ameri-
can bureaucracy, especially in the requirement that
executive branch functions are based on written

Fine Art Images/SuperStock

Sociologist Max Weber suggested
that a bureaucracy is the highest
form of efficiency.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 135 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy

documents. Positions are legally defined, officials normally hold a form of tenure, and the
salaries are based on status, or some type of rank within the organization. The bureaucracy
allows the executive branch to divide administrative responsibilities based on specialization,
and it allows specialists in particular areas to perform their functions according to objective
criteria. Thus, bureaucrats seek to accomplish objectives set forth in legislation enacted by
political figures. It is not bureaucrats’ responsibility to get involved with questions of whether
those objectives are necessarily good, as those are considerations for elected officials.

Political Appointments Versus Career Civil Service System

The bureaucracy is made up of two distinct components: the political administration and
the civil service system. The administration refers to the bureaucracy that supports the
president. The civil service system refers to those federal employees who are profession-
als hired on the basis of merit. Whereas the civil service system is viewed as the permanent
government, the political administration is viewed as a temporary government, because it is
mostly replaced when a new president takes office. Each president’s political administration
is composed of his or her immediate White House staff, his or her Cabinet, and the political
appointees who staff various agencies and departments. As an example, in the State Depart-
ment, there is a secretary of state and several assistant secretaries. Each assistant secretary
is responsible for a specific policy or programmatic area, such as the assistant secretary for
European affairs and the assistant secretary for East Asia. Political appointees in the admin-
istration also include the various ambassadors stationed abroad. Each embassy around the
world has an ambassador and several counselors who are also political appointees. Below
the political appointees are members of the civil service system, and in the case of the State
Department, the civil servants are members of the Foreign Service corps.

The key differences between political appointees and civil servants are the method by which
they obtain their jobs, the nature of their loyalties, and the tenure of their offices. Political
appointees are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Their loyalty is to
the president, who can have them removed from office. Civil servants are hired by the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, and they are chosen on the basis of merit. Individuals going
into the civil service often start out in entry-level positions and may work their way up the
bureaucratic ladder to more senior-level management positions, which explains why, in part,
these persons are often referred to as career civil servants.

Civil servants are supposed to be loyal to their agencies and dedicated to the neutral delivery
of public goods and services. Civil servants are governed by the Hatch Act of 1939, which is a
law prohibiting federal employees from participating in partisan political activity. The Hatch
Act was an outgrowth of a long tradition of civil service reform. Named after Senator Carl
Hatch of New Mexico, it was a specific response to allegations that employees of the Work
Progress Administration, a New Deal program, were used by Democratic politicians in the
1938 congressional campaign. The Hatch Act specifically prohibits intimidation or bribery
of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. Federal employees
below the policymaking level are not permitted to have “any active part” in a political cam-
paign and are prohibited from using any public funds for electoral purposes. Additionally,
civil servants are prohibited from promising jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts,
or any other benefit as a way to coerce campaign contributions or political support. In practi-
cal terms, this means that a political administrator may attend a fundraiser for members of

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 136 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System

the president’s political party, but a civil servant may not. While civil servants are permitted
to vote, like any other citizen, they may not campaign for political candidates.

The Hatch Act also prohibits federal employees from being members of “any political organi-
zation which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.” This has
been interpreted to preclude membership in the Communist Party.

Politics Versus Public Administration

The federal bureaucracy is structured on the principle
that politics should not play a role in the execution
of government functions. The reason for the separa-
tion is to maintain accountability, transparency, and
neutrality. In the 1880s, political scientist Woodrow
Wilson, who would later become president, put forth
the classical model of public administration. Propos-
ing a strong executive who would also be accountable,
Wilson argued that public administration should be
separate from political and policy concerns. Rather,
public administration should be concerned solely
with the “detailed and systematic execution of pub-
lic law” (Wilson, 1887). Law and policies are made
by elected officials, who are held accountable by vot-
ers at the ballot box. If the public is unhappy with the
policy choices made by elected officials, it can always
vote them out of office. The role of the bureaucracy is
to implement those policies. Wilson specifically called
for a set of principles to guide administrators in the
efficient performance of their duties.

Consider for a moment members of Congress who need to raise money for their reelection.
It would not be out of the ordinary for wealthy contributors to have greater access to these
elected officials and a greater chance of being listened to than would ordinary voters. But we
would not want a civil service system to give preference to rich people or to Republicans over
Democrats in the delivery of benefits such as Social Security payments. The point of the sepa-
ration is to ensure that delivery of public goods and services will happen on an impartial and
equal basis. Civil service, then, requires an intricate set of procedures and rules that must be
followed so that the delivery of services will, in fact, be impartial and professional.

6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System

The modern civil service system is an outgrowth of the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), when
social and government reformers sought to deliver governmental services on the basis of
merit. The idea of a neutral, nonpartisan, and impartial civil service system was revolution-
ary. Prior to the civil service system, people obtained government employment through polit-
ical connections, also known as the spoils system.

Library of Congress

Woodrow Wilson argued that admin-
istration should be separate from
political and policy concerns.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 137 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System

The Spoils System

Under the spoils system, the political party that won office would be able to staff the govern-
ment. Newly elected persons would replace those working for the government with new
employees who were loyal to them. This was, quite literally, a system of “to the victor go the
spoils.” This meant that no one could be assured of long-term government employment, and
workers were subject to being fired when their patron either left office or was defeated in an
election. Workers did not necessarily have to be qualified for their jobs; they only needed to
be loyal to the person who hired them. It would not be uncommon, for instance, for a local
postal worker to be replaced after a presidential election.

President Andrew Jackson first used the spoils system
to reward people who voted for him. Following Jack-
son’s inauguration as president in 1829, about 20% of
the federal workforce, mostly in the Post Office, was
replaced. Despite attempts by administration officials
to justify personnel changes, it became evident that the
sole criterion for employment was loyalty to Jackson.

Ironically, the spoils system reflected Jackson’s revolu-
tionary democratic spirit. Government was supposed
to belong to the people. By that standard, it should be
staffed by ordinary citizens, not technical experts. But
the problem with this system was uneven delivery of
services. As an example, a mail carrier whose loyalty
was to Jackson and his Democratic Party might be
less inclined to deliver mail with the same frequency
or care to those areas that supported Jackson’s oppo-
nents. Subsequent presidents continued to use the
spoils system to encourage people to vote for them.

The spoils system was problematic for various other
reasons. One of the legacies of the American Revolution
was a deep-seated distrust of centralized power, which
meant that Americans had a very negative view of gov-
ernment. For more than a century after the Constitu-
tion was ratified, the most desirable government was
the one that governed least. A government staffed by experts or elites might be unaccountable
to the public. In Europe, it was considered a matter of prestige to be a civil servant. But in those
European societies, one who served the public did not necessarily need to be accountable for
the simple reason that civil servants had expertise while the public did not. Jacksonian democ-
racy, by contrast, was built on the premise that the common man should govern. Moreover, at
the federal level, there was not much for government workers to do. It was only as governmen-
tal operations became more complex that there would be a greater need for professionalism.

The Good Government Reform Movement

The Good Government Reform movement sprang from the Progressive Era of the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. There were efforts at the national level to eliminate the spoils system and
replace it with a professional civil service system as early as 1865.

This cartoon alludes to the fact that
Andrew Jackson was closely associ-
ated with the spoils system. He used
it to reward people who voted for
him.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 138 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System

The reforms that did lead to the modern administrative state actually began at the local level.
In cities such as New York around the turn of the 20th century, local party leaders would typi-
cally offer patronage to immigrants. They would go to the docks to greet new arrivals with
offers of employment and assistance to find housing and other needs. Often, the party leader
would own a construction company that held building contracts with the city.

Meanwhile, these party leaders controlled party nominations, and they could help guarantee
that their people would be elected by delivering the support and votes of their immigrant
employees. In exchange for jobs, these party leaders would request that employees support
their candidates. Elected city leaders owed something to these party leaders who put them
there, and they paid that debt with construction contracts.

The spoils system also allowed local party leaders to reward their loyal followers with jobs in
the local bureaucracy. Irish immigrants and their descendants, for instance, staffed many
police departments. As a result, many elites believed that they were being displaced. The only
way they could see to reclaim what they considered to be their lost and rightful positions of
employment was to choose employees based on merit. In other words, by changing the rules
of the game, more educated elites could displace those whose only qualification was their
loyalty. Reformers sought greater efficiency and equity in the delivery of local governmental
services by pushing to require workers to take and pass qualifying exams.

At the federal level, the impetus
for replacing the spoils system was
the 1881 assassination of Presi-
dent James Garfield, who was shot
by a disgruntled campaign worker
whose repeated requests for a job
through the spoils system had
been rejected. Garfield’s successor,
Chester Arthur, had no interest in
continuing with a system that he
thought resulted in the death of
his predecessor, so in 1883 Con-
gress passed, and President Arthur
signed, the Pendleton Civil Ser-
vice Reform Act. Sponsored by
Senator George Pendleton of Ohio,
this act sought to do away with
the spoils system by creating the
United States Civil Service Com-
mission to run the federal civil ser-
vice. Under the new law, applicants for certain jobs would be required to take a civil service
exam. Hiring would be based on qualifications and merit, and elected officials and political
appointees would no longer be able to fire civil servants. This removed civil servants from the
influences of political patronage and partisan behavior.

After President James Garfield was assassinated by a
campaign worker seeking a federal job in exchange for
his efforts to get Garfield elected, Garfield’s successor,
President Chester Arthur, signed a law to eliminate the
spoils system.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 139 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System

Efficiency

A civil service system based on meritocracy was supposed to achieve efficiency in the delivery
of public goods and services, and with the professionalization of the bureaucracy came the
idea that government should be run according to scientific principles of management, which
apply business techniques to the public sector and to administrative management. These
principles refer to a division of labor and specialization, or the effort to identify the tasks nec-
essary to accomplish an objective and the grouping and coordination of those tasks to maxi-
mize organizational efficiency (see Figure 6.1 to see how this works in the U.S. government).

Frederick Winslow Taylor is often viewed as the father of scientific management. Taylor was
concerned with how management could take otherwise lazy workers and use “carrots and
sticks” to turn them into efficient and productive ones. If good management in private indus-
try could achieve efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and services in the
marketplace, then good management in government could achieve efficiency in the delivery
of public goods and services.

Efficiency, in simple terms, means producing goods for less cost. Efficiency in public service
delivery could be improved if those responsible for their delivery were not bogged down in
politics. Efficiency could also be achieved if public goods were delivered evenly and impar-
tially. Yet efficiency would be harder to measure in government than in private industry. As an
example, if a major automobile manufacturer introduces a new car model, its cost effective-
ness can be measured by tallying up the revenues earned through sales and comparing them
with the costs of production. But there would be no way to measure the cost effectiveness of,
for example, maintaining national parks. The value of people’s enjoyment of the beauty of
national parks may be priceless. Even if there are revenues derived from entrance fees, they
might not exceed the costs of maintaining the parks, which would be deemed inefficient in
the business world.

A government bureaucracy cannot always apply marketplace efficiency to the public sector.
The role of the bureaucracy is to serve the public interest. Still, it is not uncommon to criticize
the federal bureaucracy for being inefficient. Because civil servants are immune from poli-
tics and almost impossible to fire, elected officials cannot easily control the workings of the
government. Similarly, the political appointees who head agencies, unlike managers in the
private sector, have no real power to remove workers perceived to be inefficient.

Meritocracy and the Division of Labor

American bureaucracy is built on the twin concepts that individuals should be hired because
of their abilities to perform certain tasks, and that the bureaucracy itself is organized accord-
ing to function. In the State Department, for instance, there is a division for Economic, Energy,
and Agricultural Affairs; a division for Political Affairs; and a division for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs, just to name a few. The State Department performs many func-
tions. If the same individuals had to perform them all, they would spread themselves thin
across the department. Division of labor allows individuals to specialize and become expert
in something specific, allowing for greater efficiency.

Figure 6.1: The government of the United States

The U.S. government is formally organized to achieve efficiency. Business techniques are applied in
managing various departments.

From The United States Government Manual (p. 21), by R. A. Mosley & A. C. Thomas, 2009, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 140 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System
Efficiency
A civil service system based on meritocracy was supposed to achieve efficiency in the delivery
of public goods and services, and with the professionalization of the bureaucracy came the
idea that government should be run according to scientific principles of management, which
apply business techniques to the public sector and to administrative management. These
principles refer to a division of labor and specialization, or the effort to identify the tasks nec-
essary to accomplish an objective and the grouping and coordination of those tasks to maxi-
mize organizational efficiency (see Figure 6.1 to see how this works in the U.S. government).
Frederick Winslow Taylor is often viewed as the father of scientific management. Taylor was
concerned with how management could take otherwise lazy workers and use “carrots and
sticks” to turn them into efficient and productive ones. If good management in private indus-
try could achieve efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and services in the
marketplace, then good management in government could achieve efficiency in the delivery
of public goods and services.
Efficiency, in simple terms, means producing goods for less cost. Efficiency in public service
delivery could be improved if those responsible for their delivery were not bogged down in
politics. Efficiency could also be achieved if public goods were delivered evenly and impar-
tially. Yet efficiency would be harder to measure in government than in private industry. As an
example, if a major automobile manufacturer introduces a new car model, its cost effective-
ness can be measured by tallying up the revenues earned through sales and comparing them
with the costs of production. But there would be no way to measure the cost effectiveness of,
for example, maintaining national parks. The value of people’s enjoyment of the beauty of
national parks may be priceless. Even if there are revenues derived from entrance fees, they
might not exceed the costs of maintaining the parks, which would be deemed inefficient in
the business world.
A government bureaucracy cannot always apply marketplace efficiency to the public sector.
The role of the bureaucracy is to serve the public interest. Still, it is not uncommon to criticize
the federal bureaucracy for being inefficient. Because civil servants are immune from poli-
tics and almost impossible to fire, elected officials cannot easily control the workings of the
government. Similarly, the political appointees who head agencies, unlike managers in the
private sector, have no real power to remove workers perceived to be inefficient.
Meritocracy and the Division of Labor
American bureaucracy is built on the twin concepts that individuals should be hired because
of their abilities to perform certain tasks, and that the bureaucracy itself is organized accord-
ing to function. In the State Department, for instance, there is a division for Economic, Energy,
and Agricultural Affairs; a division for Political Affairs; and a division for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs, just to name a few. The State Department performs many func-
tions. If the same individuals had to perform them all, they would spread themselves thin
across the department. Division of labor allows individuals to specialize and become expert
in something specific, allowing for greater efficiency.
Figure 6.1: The government of the United States
The U.S. government is formally organized to achieve efficiency. Business techniques are applied in
managing various departments.
From The United States Government Manual (p. 21), by R. A. Mosley & A. C. Thomas, 2009, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 141 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.3 What Do Bureaucrats Do?

Along with this division of labor go two principles that underpin bureaucracy generally, and
American bureaucracy in particular: chain of command and span of control. Chain of com-
mand refers to the hierarchical nature of the bureaucracy. A department secretary oversees
undersecretaries, who oversee assistant secretaries, who oversee division supervisors, who
oversee assistant supervisors, who oversee mid-level managers, who oversee subordinates
beneath them, and all the way down to the lowest level in the organization. The span of con-
trol refers to authority that a particular supervisor might have over subordinates in several
units. When the chain of command and span of control are put together, the structure of the
bureaucracy resembles a pyramid with the head of a department at the top and line work-
ers at the bottom. The line workers are those, like caseworkers in a welfare office or cus-
tomer service staff in a Social Security office, who are essentially the public face of the federal
bureaucracy for those who need their services.

6.3 What Do Bureaucrats Do?

In simple terms, bureaucrats take orders from those above them and give orders to those
below in order to administer programs and deliver public goods and services. In the spirit of
separating public administration from politics, bureaucrats implement policies and adminis-
ter programs created by elected public officials.

Implement Laws, Policies,
and Programs

The bureaucracy, as the organiza-
tional form of the executive branch,
“executes” laws and policies passed
by the legislative branch. As such,
much of the bureaucracy is devoted
to regulating individual and group
behavior. If Congress passes and
the president signs a new tax on
millionaires, the agency or depart-
ment responsible for collecting
those taxes is the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), which is part of the
U.S. Treasury Department. The IRS
monitors individuals’ incomes and
the taxes they pay through report-
ing requirements. Because the IRS
has the authority to enforce the
existing federal tax code, individuals are required to file annual tax returns, and the IRS can
audit those suspected of cheating. If individuals do not submit the taxes they owe at the end of
the year, the IRS can collect them by putting a lien on an individual’s wages. It can also enforce
collections by initiating judicial proceedings against those suspected of tax evasion.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees sift through
tax returns at an IRS tax form processing center. As
part of the bureaucracy of the executive branch, the IRS
enforces policy that has been passed by Congress and
signed by the president.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 142 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.3 What Do Bureaucrats Do?

All these activities are examples of an agency implementing laws that Congress passed and that,
by extension, reflect the will of the people. The bureaucracy also includes FBI agents who inves-
tigate crimes and federal prosecutors who suspect criminals on behalf of the FBI, workers who
deliver the mail, physicians in veterans hospitals, caseworkers who process applications for
public assistance, analysts in the Department of Labor who report on monthly unemployment
figures, and scientists in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who look for cures for cancer or
in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) who manage space exploration.

Make Laws Through Rule-Making

In theory, the bureaucracy does not make laws, as only Congress has the authority to do so. In
reality, though, the bureaucracy makes law through its rule-making function. Once Congress
passes a law, the bureaucracy sets the rules for how that law will be implemented, in essence
filling in the details. These rules are usually published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and may also appear in the Federal Register. Published rules are considered by the
courts to be as legally binding as statutory law—law made by Congress—provided that they
are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statute. The bureaucracy thus establishes a
written record of what it does and makes it publicly available.

Adjudicate Decisions and Disputes

The bureaucracy also exercises a degree of judicial authority through its administrative adju-
dication function. When an agency writes rules for how people can receive benefits, it also
establishes procedures for how benefits can be terminated. The Administrative Procedures
Act of 1946 has adjudicatory requirements that apply when an agency’s statutes require that
an order—not an agency rule—be issued. The order is “to be determined on the record after
opportunity for an agency hearing.” The result is that such proceedings are to be conducted
in a fashion similar to a court.

Proceedings are presided over by impartial administrative law judges who are appointed by
the agency with the approval of the Office of Personnel Management. Administrative law pro-
ceedings include oral hearings and cross-examination of witnesses and are fully recorded
along with documentary evidence. An administrative law judge makes an “initial decision”
that is final unless it is appealed to the head of the agency. An agency head can also make a
decision after receiving a recommendation from the administrative law judge. Still, courts can
review the decisions of agencies, but they are likely to overturn decisions only if they do not
conform with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and other
statutes. Or they may overturn a decision if they find that an agency’s “action, findings, and
conclusions” are not supported by substantial evidence.

The bureaucracy in effect acts like a court, and what occurs is an administrative hearing. Sup-
pose, for example, that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decides to ter-
minate a recipient’s benefits because that person failed to abide by the rules. Suppose the
specific rule required that the person report to a work site for a minimum of 20 hours a week,
and he failed to do this. HHS, of course, justifies its actions by pointing to the rules in the
Federal Register. Still, the recipient is a citizen and has rights, so he appeals the termination

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 143 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments

of benefits decision. He presents his case to a panel in HHS that will hear and adjudicate the
appeal. The judicial power of the bureaucracy is referred to as agency adjudication, and it
occurs when someone has violated agency rules. If the recipient who loses benefits is not
satisfied with the result of the hearing, he can always appeal the results to an actual court.

6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments

The federal bureaucracy is made up of several types of organizations, and the president, at
least at the political level, makes different types of appointments to each organization. Most
Americans are familiar with the traditional Cabinet departments such as Justice, Treasury,
and State. But there are also independent agencies, independent regulatory commissions, and
government corporations. Each of these types of organizations has layers of political appoin-
tees and civil servants.

The Cabinet

The 15 Cabinet departments, listed in Table 6.1, comprise about 60% of the federal workforce.
These departments generally fall into three categories, although some departments could be
classified in more than one category. These categories include functional, clientele, and geo-
graphic. Regardless of type, each Cabinet department is further divided into various smaller
units, such as bureaus, divisions, or offices. Much of the work gets done in these smaller units.

Independent Agencies

An independent agency is a federal body that is independent of both the president and Con-
gress. Congress creates the agency and the president appoints people to it, but after that nei-
ther Congress nor the president has much control. That is the idea: to have an agency that can
oversee a specific policy or program function without being subject to political pressures. At
the same time, independent agencies are
subject to oversight, as they can be called
to testify at congressional hearings.

The Federal Reserve Board, or “the Fed,”
which regulates banks and the money sup-
ply, is an example of an independent agency.
The president appoints a chair for a period
of 4 years, and people who are known as
“governors” (not actual elected state gov-
ernors) for 14-year terms. Once they are
in place, governors may be removed by
the president for cause. Although Congress
regularly calls the Fed chair to testify, it
has no authority over the agency short of
rewriting the legislation that created it in
the first place.

Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen was nomi-
nated by President Obama in 2014 for a 4-year
term. The Federal Reserve Board chair serves as
part of the president’s administration but makes
decisions independent of executive oversight.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 144 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments

Table 6.1: Cabinet departments

Department Function Date of creation

Department of State (DOS) Handles foreign policy and rep-
resents the nation abroad

1789

Department of the Treasury Manages taxes, revenue, and
sometimes broader economic
policy

1789

Department of the Interior (DOI) Maintains national parks and
other public lands (most of the
nation’s parks are in the West)

1849

Department of Agriculture
(USDA)

Serves the interests of farmers 1862

Department of Justice (DOJ) Enforces federal law and pros-
ecutes criminal violations of it

1870

Department of Commerce Serves the interests of
businesses

1903

Department of Labor (DOL) Helps American workers by
improving working condi-
tions, addressing job training,
minimum wage, employment
discrimination, and unemploy-
ment insurance

1913

Department of Defense (DOD) Coordinates the nation’s defense 1947 (The Department of
Defense was originally created as
the Department of War in 1789
and renamed in 1947 as the
Department of Defense.)

Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS)

Helps low-income individuals
access free or low-cost health
services and affordable housing

1953 (The Department of Health
and Human Services was origi-
nally the Department of Health
Education and Welfare. The
Department of Education was
created as a separate department
in 1979.)

Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)

Improves and develops the
nation’s communities and
enforces fair housing laws

1965

Department of Transportation
(DOT)

Ensures a fast, safe, efficient,
accessible, and convenient trans-
portation system

1966

Department of Energy (DOE) Advances the national energy
security

1977

Department of Education (ED) Promotes educational quality
and equal access to education

1979

Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)

Administers benefit programs
for veterans, their families, and
their survivors

1989

Data from “The Executive Branch,” by The White House, 2015(http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch).

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 145 3/24/16 1:47 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments

Independent Regulatory Commission

An independent regulatory commission is like an independent agency with a narrow focus
and specific function. Examples include the Securities and Exchange Commission, which
regulates trading activity on Wall Street; the Federal Elections Commission, which regulates
campaign and election activity; the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulates the
movement of goods across state lines; and the Federal Communications Commission, which
regulates interstate and international radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communica-
tions as well as telephone companies, including wireless service providers.

If regulation were handled by Congress, it might not happen at all, and it certainly would not
happen evenly. Likewise, if the Federal Election Commission were subject to traditional exec-
utive branch control, it might hesitate to investigate illegal presidential campaign contribu-
tions because the recipient of those contributions might well now be the president oversee-
ing the commission. Immunity from political pressures and from arbitrary removal enables
an independent regulatory commission to do its job.

Government Corporations

A government corporation is a legal entity created to exercise some of the powers of the
government. It is either wholly owned or partially owned by the government and is often
structured as a nonprofit organization. However, it is not entirely part of the federal bureau-
cracy. Government corporations are intended to serve a valued public purpose while main-
taining a degree of independence. An example is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), whose mis-
sion appears below:

The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide
postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational,
literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt,
reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal
services to all communities.

The USPS is required, by statute, to provide the same services to all Americans, such as deliv-
ering first-class mail at the same price no matter where they live or the actual cost of deliver-
ing that mail.

Types of Political Appointments

Political appointments often fall into three general categories: specialists, careerists, and cli-
entelists. The specialist appointee generally has specific expert knowledge that is critical to
running a functional department. As an example, the State Department is functional, in that
its specific purpose is foreign policy. However, a secretary of state and his or her assistant
secretaries are likely to be foreign policy experts and are therefore examples of specialist
appointments.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 146 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments

Presidents do not always appoint specialists to top positions in the government. Presidents
may appoint careerists, such as prominent political figures who have served in different
presidential administrations in a variety of capacities. Careerists bring knowledge of how
Washington works and how to work through the bureaucracy, and they often have connec-
tions with members of Congress. Because the appointees are the ones who have to represent
their agencies and departments before Congress, their congressional connections are criti-
cal, especially when it comes to requests for funding. An example of a careerist is Norman
Mineta, who served as member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1995, then
secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton and later secretary of transportation
under President George W. Bush. Even though Mineta was a Democrat, President George W.
Bush understood the value of Mineta’s knowledge of Washington politics when he chose him
to serve in his Cabinet.

Sometimes a president appoints a
careerist because he or she would
like to have a greater say in a par-
ticular policy area. For instance,
careerists are often appointed to
be secretary of state by presidents
who consider themselves suffi-
ciently expert in foreign affairs. A
non-expert at the State Department
allows a president to run policy
from the White House. This was
true in the early years of the Nixon
administration, when William P.
Rogers was secretary of state and
Henry Kissinger was national secu-
rity advisor. Foreign policy was gen-
erally run from the White House,
and the secretary of state was little
more than a figurehead. Later, when
Kissinger became secretary of state
in 1973, foreign policy was once again made in the State Department. Although the term was
not used then, Kissinger was in many respects Nixon’s foreign policy czar.

The clientelist is the third type of appointment that presidents make, usually to agencies or
departments that serve a specific clientele. A clientelist is often appointed because he or she
is believed to satisfy a particular constituency and can bring that constituency’s support back
to the president. An example of this is the secretary of agriculture. Because the Department of
Agriculture primarily serves the interests of farmers, it makes sense to appoint an agriculture
secretary from those states that form the farm bloc. Coming from that area, he or she will
understand what farmers want and may be able to deliver the farmers’ support in the next
election.

An example of a careerist appointment would be when
President Richard Nixon (center) had William P. Rogers
(left) serve as secretary of state but appointed Henry
Kissinger (right) as national security advisor. His goal
was to run foreign policy from the White House, not the
State Department.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 147 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

The federal bureaucracy is often referred to as the “fourth branch of government” because it
is almost like a branch unto itself. Most workers in the bureaucracy are civil servants, so it is
very difficult for political leaders to control what they do. In the private sector, a worker who
does not do what the president of his or her company wants can be fired. That is not the case
with the civil service system, where the president or even his or her political appointees can-
not easily remove a career civil servant. Civil service workers are protected by civil service
rules, and to remove a civil service employee, even for cause, requires several steps in a pro-
tracted process that guarantees the employee’s rights to appeal.

Unlike in the spoils system, a new Republican president cannot order the termination of all
employees in the Department of Health and Human Services because the president thinks
they might have voted for the Democratic opponent in the last election. Civil servants can be
fired for failure to perform their duties, but the procedures to do so are complex. Employees
facing termination may appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

Still, there are ways to control the bureaucracy, or at least make it more accountable. Fore-
most among these are the president’s ability to control budgets for specific agencies, and
Congress’s ability to hold legislative oversight hearings. Even though it is immune from tradi-
tional political pressure, at the end of the day the bureaucracy, like any other institution, still
needs to maintain a measure of support from the public.

Presidential Control

Political scientist Francis Rourke (1984) has observed that a key theme in American politics
over the years has been the struggle for control over national policy between the White House
and the bureaucratic organizations. Rourke has suggested that a president has three courses
of action. First, the president can fill the top echelon of executive organizations with political
appointees who share his or her values and hope that they will protect his or her interests.
Second, the president can assign members of the White House staff to monitor the work of
executive agencies. Third, the president can create structures in the White House that will
take the lead in policy areas of importance to him or her. The use of White House czars reflects
this third course. In the past, however, presidents took one or more of these courses of action
in response to deep dissatisfaction with bureaucratic performance.

As mentioned in the opening vignette, President Obama began his presidency by appointing
several czars, which signaled that he would prefer that policy direction come from him and
the White House. President Nixon, in particular, used this approach when he made all foreign
policy through Henry Kissinger and the National Security Council rather than William P. Rog-
ers and the State Department.

The president can also control the bureaucracy through the budgeting process. Although
Congress technically appropriates money and therefore must approve of budgets, as we dis-
cussed in Chapter 2, the president prepares the budgets and submits them to Congress.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 148 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

There are three basic budgeting techniques: line-item budgeting, planning program budget-
ing, and zero-base budgeting. With line-item budgeting, money is appropriated for specific
items such as equipment, personnel, and programs. A department that received $40 billion
last year can usually expect the same this year and perhaps 4% more. If there are to be budget
cuts, its budget will not be cut very much—maybe only by 2–3%. This is also known as incre-
mentalism, which is the idea that everything is completed in small steps. The point of line-
item budgeting is that it is predictable, and there is very little concern that a department or
agency will be completely defunded. However, without such danger, the president does not
enjoy the same level of control that he or she might were he or she able to eliminate depart-
ments or agencies. Moreover, a bureaucracy that can expect a consistent budget has very little
reason to explain itself and justify how it is spending public monies.

A president might be able to
achieve accountability by forcing
agencies and departments to jus-
tify their expenditures based on
the programs that they adminis-
ter. Planning program budget-
ing (PPB) is a technique whereby
a budget is organized around pro-
grams rather than items. The idea
was first introduced during Presi-
dent Kennedy’s administration by
Defense Secretary Robert McNa-
mara. A budget would be organized
around specific programs like the
North Pacific Fleet, Aircraft Carrier
groups, and Amphibious Landings.
The Defense Department would
undertake a cost-benefit analysis
to determine whether benefits of
a particular program justified its
costs. This question, of course, is a
political one, as benefits are deter-
mined according to whose inter-
ests are being served, or in terms of

who is getting what, when, and how. The implication, however, is that if the benefits cannot
be shown to justify the costs, the entire program can be cut. Politically, this is often difficult
because every program has its own base of support. But it does force the bureaucracy to be
accountable to the political leadership in the executive branch.

A third type of budgeting technique is known as zero-base budgeting (ZBB), which was
introduced during the Carter administration. The basic idea is that departments and agen-
cies should not assume that, just because they had a budget the previous year, they are nec-
essarily entitled to one now. On the contrary, they should assume that they have no budget
and that they are preparing one from scratch. They are in effect being asked to explain to the
political leaders what it is they do, why it is essential that they continue doing it, and just how

Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite

Republican Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee chair,
references President Obama’s 2014 fiscal budget pro-
posal book during a hearing on the Health and Human
Services budget. The president can often use the bud-
get to exert a degree of executive control over bureau-
cratic agencies. Representative Ryan has since become
speaker of the House of Representatives.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 149 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

any appropriation of public monies will be spent. In practice, those preparing budgets begin
from a certain level of spending, perhaps around 80% of their previous budget. They then
put together “decision packages” consisting of different ways that the level of services could
be increased and then rank them. This way, political appointees can establish priorities for
spending increases.

As with the PPB, ZBB requires bureaucrats to be accountable by engaging in public justifica-
tion. ZBB similarly assumes that if the justification is not adequate, the agency or department
can be eliminated. Again, it would be politically difficult to eliminate a whole unit because
agencies and departments typically have supporters in Congress as well as among a variety of
interest groups. Still, by forcing bureaucrats to jump through the hoops associated with both
ZBB and PPB, the president is able to exert some control. At the very least, the president can
ensure that an agency or department perceived to be out of control receives less money.

Management by Objective

Management by objective is the idea that the president and his or her political appointees can
establish objectives for each program as well as a set of measures to determine whether those
objectives have been met. Agency heads establish a set of quantified objectives to be achieved
in the coming year and then break down each objective into quarterly targets. This process
is repeated down the chain of command. The goal is to achieve greater efficiency through
clearly stated objectives that are easily quantified. If everybody is forced to demonstrate that
objectives are being achieved, and how they are being achieved, there will be greater account-
ability. Implicit in all this is the threat that if objectives are not achieved, major changes can
be made, including overhaul of departments, elimination of programs, and termination of
personnel.

Congressional Control

As we mentioned in Chapter 4, Congress holds the executive branch accountable to the public
through legislative oversight hearings. The bureaucracy cannot function if Congress does not
appropriate money to it. Thus, controlling the bureaucracy through legislative oversight is a
matter of bringing Congress’s power of the purse to bear. Typically, it is the political appoin-
tees who actually testify before Congress about what their departments are doing, how they
are administering specific programs, and how public money is being spent. But it is the career
bureaucrat who is often required to prepare the actual testimony. Agencies and departments
are also required to submit reports to Congress on a periodic basis, and civil service workers
write these reports. In an extreme type of control of this civil service workforce, on the basis
of hearings, Congress can rewrite legislation to change the bounds of an agency’s jurisdiction
and authority. It can also appropriate less money to an agency. Congress does not need the
president to request less money; it can do this on its own.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 150 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups

Judicial Control

Bureaucracies that implement policies and programs are an extension of the president exe-
cuting the laws of the land. They are the administrative machinery of the executive branch.
But the bureaucracy still has to operate within the bounds of the law. Thus, court rulings can
affect the scope of administrative authority. A court can either expand bureaucratic author-
ity or limit it. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for instance, routinely enforces tax collec-
tion through random audits of Americans. If the IRS intends to audit someone, that person
is forced to comply, though he or she can bring an accountant or lawyer along to ensure due
process. Suppose that someone believed that an audit was a violation of his or her privacy.
This person could file suit in court in an attempt to force the IRS to stop random audits. Were
a court to order that future audits needed a prior court order so as not to invade privacy, it
would, in effect, be narrowing the scope of the IRS’s authority.

6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups

The relationship between Congress and the bureaucracy is not always characterized by Con-
gress holding the executive branch accountable. There are also times when Congress and the
bureaucracy work together to satisfy mutual interests. Additionally, there are instances when
agencies appear to serve interest groups to the exclusion of the public interest. Some of these
relationships are known as the iron triangle of representation, and others are referred to as
bureaucratic capture.

Iron Triangles

An iron triangle is a relationship among a committee in Congress, an interest group, and an
administrative department or agency whereby each attempts to satisfy the others for mutual
gain (see Figure 6.2). For example, interest groups lobby members of Congress (that is, they
try to influence them) for programs or projects that will benefit them. Congressional mem-
bers in turn lobby administrative agencies for contracts to run these programs. The bureau-
cracy lobbies Congress for funds for programs so that it in turn can award contracts. Members
of the bureaucracy also lobby for budgets, because the size of a budget is often seen as a
measure of prestige and power. Members of Congress may lobby the administrative agency to
award a contract to a particular interest group in the hopes that they will be repaid with cam-
paign contributions. Administrative agencies also seek to satisfy interest groups by awarding
contracts to them because some bureaucrats might want to trade government jobs for more
lucrative private ones. They may also seek to satisfy interests in the hopes that lobbying Con-
gress will result in a greater appropriation for those groups.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 151 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups

By and large, iron triangles are considered to be impenetrable. Although each point of the tri-
angle does allow for various interests to gain access, the close relationships among the three
sides make it extremely difficult to introduce new and innovative policies. For example, an
idealistic president may want to cut the defense budget to have serious arms control, but he
or she will find it extremely difficult to do so. Still, iron triangles allow for individual concerns
to be represented through the interest groups representing those concerns as part of the iron
triangle relationship.

Bureaucratic Capture

When an agency is in the service of its clientele and the interests of the clientele come before
the interests of the public, it is said to have succumbed to bureaucratic capture. For instance,
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the airline industry with the goal of keep-
ing the flying public safe. Yet in practice the agency is often viewed as a traditional clientele
agency whose first mission is to serve the interests of those it is supposed to regulate. If, for
instance, it eases maintenance requirements on aircraft and an unintended consequence is a
plane crash, critics will assume that those requirements were eased to allow the airlines to
save money and boost profits. If the FAA had demanded harsher maintenance requirements,
it would have been serving the public interest. Because instead it gave in to the demands of
the airlines, it is an example of bureaucratic capture.

Figure 6.2: The iron triangle

Iron triangles represent the relationships among congressional committees, interest groups, and the
bureaucracy.

From Ubernetizen.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 152 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups

An agency may be captured as a
function of an iron triangle. In these
cases, not only does it specifically
serve the interests of its clientele,
but it does so with the express
blessing of the congressional com-
mittee that is supposed to oversee
it. When an agency is captured,
there is, in effect, no accountabil-
ity, and it is that much harder for
politicians to control it. It generally
takes a severe crisis or multiple cri-
ses, such as several plane crashes
where hundreds of lives are lost, to
break a bureaucratic capture.

Remedies

Political scientist Theodore Lowi
(2009) has contended that Con-
gress is responsible for the cre-
ation of iron triangles and the bureaucratic capture that results. Because Congress delegates
authority to the bureaucracy to accomplish its objectives, interest groups will inevitably arise
to get a piece of the action. The solution might be to withdraw the delegation of authority.
However, this does not seem feasible because as citizens expect more of their government,
they demand more of Congress, whose members must respond by creating new programs.
Congress then has to delegate authority so that the new programs are implemented, and this
in turn empowers the bureaucracy. As a consequence, bureaucracy becomes a symbol of big
government, which is counter to the culture of limited government upon which the country
was founded.

One remedy to the problem of a cumbersome bureaucracy might be a move toward limited
government, but it is not clear whether limited government is realistic in a complex society.
Lowi has suggested the remedy of returning to “juridicial democracy,” which would amount
to limiting federal action “to those practices for which it is possible to develop a clear and
authoritative rule of law, enacted democratically and implemented absolutely” (2009). In
other words, federal action needs to be subject to popular control, as exercised through the
representative Congress. Lowi has even suggested that the Supreme Court be asked to declare
unconstitutional any delegation of power to an administrative agency that is not accompanied
by clear standards of implementation. In other words, the traditional disdain for big govern-
ment was really a concern that the executive would become all powerful and act arbitrarily.

A society as complex as the 21st century United States requires a greater executive presence,
which in turn involves greater bureaucracy. But there still need to be checks on the powers of
the executive, and the concept of juridical democracy is offered as one mechanism for ensur-
ing that the democracy does not act arbitrarily. Recall from Chapter 1 that the desire to check
the executive was a key motive for the colonists to declare independence from the British.

Associated Press/The Oklahoman/Michael Downes

Officials from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)
investigate a plane crash. The FAA is a good example
of bureaucratic capture because it is supposed to be
serving the public interest, but too often it gives in to
the demands of the airlines and other special interest
groups.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 153 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section

6.7 Bureaucracy in American Political Culture

The revolutionary spirit from which the American nation was born has generally contrib-
uted to a negative perception of bureaucracy. Government institutions have not always been
viewed in the most positive terms, and the bureaucracy has often been seen as a concrete
manifestation of government power.

Bureaucracy as Active Government

The United States has long had a tradition of opposing active government that has added to
the ambivalence toward administrative agencies. One of the core American values is individ-
ual liberty, and because government institutions were designed to protect individual liberty
through the separation of powers, there has long been a belief that liberty and strong central
governmental authority cannot coexist. The Framers actually admonished that we should be
jealous of government power, as such power would represent a threat to liberty. The growth
of American bureaucracy, however, coincides with the transformation from passive to active
government, and with the evolution from dual federalism to cooperative and then creative
federalism, as discussed in Chapter 3. This growth has been contrary to the values of limited
government.

It is not just that Americans are
ambivalent about administrative
agencies because they are con-
cerned about their liberty, however.
Opposition to active government
in the United States has also made
Americans ambivalent out of the
belief that government only fouls
things up. Government should be
limited in its functions, the thinking
goes, because individuals are capa-
ble of doing things better and more
efficiently on their own.

Much of the opposition to health
care reform had to do with concern
that if bureaucrats decided who gets
what type of treatment, individual
liberty would be infringed upon,
and that a system that was perceived to run well in the private sector would be destroyed by
government control. If the costs of health care are too high, the argument goes, the answer is
not government bureaucracy, but more competition in the marketplace.

Some of these views are derived from a conviction that markets are more efficient. But some
of these views may also be derived from a historical distrust of government. Concerns about
active government in the United States have a much longer history than the Progressive tra-
dition, from which the more modern view of government as a force for good descends. To

A tradition that opposes active government contrib-
utes to the belief among many Americans that govern-
ment control generally leads to more problems than
solutions.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 154 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Section 6.7 Bureaucracy in American Political Culture

a certain extent, modern administrative theory is built on the reality that markets do not
always work and, left to their own, unregulated, devices, free markets can result in unemploy-
ment, poverty, great disparities in wealth and income, products that only wealthy people can
buy, and in general much human suffering and misery. The modern administrative state exists
to compensate for many of these market failures. Free markets, in other words, require strong
mediating bureaucratic structures if they are to succeed for everyone.

Arguments for government regulation stem from the observation that government is not the
only source of centralized power about which citizens should be jealous. Rather, corporations
are also sources of strong centralized power with the potential to limit our freedom. Accord-
ing to this argument, Americans need to be jealous of both corporate and government power.
Government, then, has a role to play in making a more fair and equitable society.

Bureaucracy as Red Tape

The idea that bureaucracy is full of red tape implies that government cannot deliver goods
and services efficiently. Consider two images: one is a McDonald’s restaurant and the other is
the U.S. Post Office. In McDonald’s, the goal is to sell as much fast food as quickly as possible.
Fast food restaurants appeal to customers who do not want to take the time for a leisurely
meal, but instead want speed at low prices. If customers are kept waiting in long lines for long
periods of time, they will go elsewhere. Employees are expected to serve customers efficiently,
or they will lose their jobs. McDonald’s follows the rule of competition, and when there is
competition, there is greater efficiency.

Customers at a typical post office,
by contrast, may encounter long
lines and be frustrated with the
level of service. Unlike employees
at McDonald’s, who may be termi-
nated without cause, postal work-
ers are protected by civil service
rules. This runs contrary to Taylor’s
principles of scientific manage-
ment, which hold that efficiency
will be accomplished only if man-
agement can control the workforce
through carrots and sticks. A civil
service system removes that con-
trol. Because the Post Office has a
virtual monopoly on mail service,
customers cannot readily go else-
where when they find themselves frustrated with their mail service. Unlike McDonald’s,
which has the flexibility to locate in areas that will bring high customer volume, the USPS has
no choice as to who it serves or where its customers live. The cost of sending a 1-oz. letter is
the same whether that letter is delivered across town or across time zones. The USPS must
also deliver the mail 6 days a week. Abiding by these federal rules may contribute to the per-
ception that the USPS is not performing in a fiscally responsible manner.

Blend Images/SuperStock

Government bureaucracy is intended to be slow and
cumbersome so that individual liberty is protected.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 155 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Summary and Resources

When the Post Office is compared to the McDonald’s restaurant, it looks inefficient. But the
image of the bureaucracy as red tape extends beyond inefficiency at the level of line workers.
It also implies that there are too many layers of decision making, which slow things down
even further. The American cultural traditions of liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the
marketplace have fueled this ambivalence toward administrative agencies.

Bureaucracy as Accountability

Political scientist James Q. Wilson (1991) has argued that the red tape and inefficiency of
the bureaucracy help ensure accountability. Like the American government, the bureaucracy
is intended to function slowly and in a cumbersome manner in order to be accountable.
The effect is that the bureaucracy protects individual liberty. If bureaucrats have to wade
through several layers of red tape, they are forced to explain and justify their actions. This is
the meaning of governing by written rules. A slow and tedious process also helps ensure that
the actions that are taken are correct. The layers reinforce an administrative command, with
authority passing through stages that provide accountability and thus protect liberty.

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
The American bureaucracy is composed of the agencies and departments of the executive branch
of government. The Framers had not originally addressed the role of the bureaucracy because
they assumed, first, that the government would be run primarily by Congress and, second, that
most domestic functions would be performed at the state level. Over the years, the bureaucracy
has grown because the role of government has expanded. The bureaucracy is an essential part
of government because it implements policies and programs that are passed by the political
branches. As such, it is supposed to be politically neutral. But in the performance of its adminis-
trative function, the bureaucracy does perform a policymaking and judicial function.

Because the goal of the Good Government movement was to separate politics from admin-
istration, the spoils system, which was tied to politics, was replaced by a career civil service
system designed to be immune from popular pressure. This means that politicians cannot
remove civil servants and that they have little control over what the bureaucracy does. Presi-
dents have been able to exert some control through the executive budgeting process, and
Congress has been able to exert some control through the legislative oversight process. Both
presidents and Congress have sought to ensure that government is accountable to political
officials, who in turn are held accountable by the voters.

The factor that most helps to maintain accountability might be the hierarchical structure of the
bureaucracy. Because it is structured on a chain of command and span of control, the bureau-
cracy cannot act swiftly. Each action must go through several layers of approval. This system
protects Americans’ individual liberty. Presidents have found this to be frustrating and have
often sought to circumvent the bureaucracy with appointments of special czars, which enables
them to run policy from the White House, rather than from traditional departments. Presidents
may have also opted to circumvent the bureaucracy because iron triangles and bureaucratic
capture make it more difficult to initiate new programs or terminate old ones.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 156 3/24/16 1:47 PM

Summary and Resources

Key Ideas to Remember

• The federal bureaucracy can be viewed as the permanent government whose
responsibility it is to execute the nation’s laws.

• The bureaucracy is made up of two distinct components: political appointees who
are responsible for making policy, and civil servants who are responsible for admin-
istering that policy.

• American bureaucracy functions according to the principle that those who are
responsible for administration should not be subject to popular pressure.

• The civil service system is predicated on meritocracy, and the application of scien-
tific principles of management arose to replace the spoils system. This was seen to
be a step in the direction of efficient and impartial government.

• The chain of command in the American bureaucracy, which is often labeled “red tape,”
helps ensure accountability and protect individual liberty. Each actor cannot act with-
out the approval of his or her respective supervisor up the chain of command.

• The American bureaucracy fulfills all the functions of the three branches of Ameri-
can government. It effectively makes law by writing rules that appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations, it executes laws by implementing them, and it exercises judicial
authority by holding administrative legal proceedings when its rules are violated.

• There has long been tension between the political branches and the bureaucracy.
Presidents, in particular, have attempted to control the bureaucracy through various
budgeting techniques, at times even bypassing the bureaucracy by running opera-
tions through czars out of the White House.

• Although Congress seeks to control the bureaucracy through legislative oversight, it
is often involved in an iron triangle relationship with the bureaucracy and interest
groups that benefit from Congress’s delegation of power.

• Although a complex society requires an administrative state, Americans generally
oppose active government whereby they distrust government and its manifestation
in bureaucracy.

Questions to Consider

1. What is administrative neutrality, and why is it so important?
2. How did the bureaucracy evolve from a spoils system to the civil service system, and

what were the reasons for it?
3. What exactly does the bureaucracy do?
4. If the bureaucracy is, in effect, making policy by plugging in details and performing a

judicial function by holding administrative hearings, is the bureaucracy violating the
principle of checks and balances?

5. What are the different methods that the political branches can employ to control the
bureaucracy?

6. How has the nature of American political culture influenced the design of bureau-
cracy and the scope of its authority?

7. Does the appointment of policy czars violate checks and balances? Why or why not?

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 157 3/24/16 1:47 PM

The Brownlow Committee report,
leading to a reorganization of the

executive branch, is passed.

1946

Article II of the Constitution is written to include
“he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the
Duties of their respective Offices,” suggesting the
presence of a bureacracy.

1787

President Gar�eld assassinated by a disgruntled
campaign worker expecting a patronage job who
did not receive one.

1881

Progressive Era reformers advance the idea that
government services should be delivered based
on merit.

1890s–1920s

The Brownlow Committee report leading
to a reorganization of the executive branch
is released.

1939

The New Deal period, during which the largest
increase in the size of the bureaucracy in U.S.
history occurs.

1933–1945

First three executive branch departments
(Treasury, State, War) created by Congress.

1789

Congress passes Pendleton Civil Service
Reform Act.

1883

Congress creates Securities and Exchange
Commission.

1934

Congress passes Hatch Act prohibiting
federal employees from participating in

partisan political activity.

1939

1
8
0
0

2
0
1
5

Summary and Resources

Timeline: Bureaucracy

Photo credits (top to bottom): Associated Press, Daniel Grill/Thinkstock, Zoonar/unknown/Zoonar/Thinkstock,
Everett Collection/SuperStock, Ninuns/iStock/Thinkstock.

The Brownlow Committee report,
leading to a reorganization of the
executive branch, is passed.
1946
Article II of the Constitution is written to include
“he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the
Duties of their respective Offices,” suggesting the
presence of a bureacracy.
1787
President Gar�eld assassinated by a disgruntled
campaign worker expecting a patronage job who
did not receive one.
1881
Progressive Era reformers advance the idea that
government services should be delivered based
on merit.
1890s–1920s
The Brownlow Committee report leading
to a reorganization of the executive branch
is released.
1939
The New Deal period, during which the largest
increase in the size of the bureaucracy in U.S.
history occurs.
1933–1945
First three executive branch departments
(Treasury, State, War) created by Congress.
1789
Congress passes Pendleton Civil Service
Reform Act.
1883
Congress creates Securities and Exchange
Commission.
1934
Congress passes Hatch Act prohibiting
federal employees from participating in
partisan political activity.
1939
1
8
0
0
2
0
1
5

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 158 3/24/16 1:48 PM

Summary and Resources

Key Terms

administration The bureaucracy that sup-
ports the president, composed of political
appointees.

Administrative Procedures Act of
1946 Legislation that governs the way that
federal agencies may propose and establish
regulations.

bureaucracy The division of agencies
and departments into sections known as
bureaus.

bureaucratic capture When agencies
are captive to the interests of those they
regulate.

chain of command A hierarchical structure
whereby power and authority flows from
the top down to the bottom.

Civil Service Commission A body created
to oversee and regulate the federal civil
service.

civil service system Those federal employ-
ees who are professionals hired on the basis
of merit.

cost-benefit analysis Evaluating a program
or policy to determine if it is efficient, as
evidenced by the benefits outweighing the
costs.

delegation of authority When Congress
grants power and authority to an execu-
tive branch department or agency to do
something.

government corporation A special entity
set up by government to achieve a public
purpose but that can be independent of
government; it relies on government for
funding.

Hatch Act of 1939 Federal statute that
prohibits civil servants from participating in
partisan political activity.

independent agency An agency that is
independent of both the president and
Congress.

independent regulatory commission A
body, like an independent agency, set up to
regulate something specific.

iron triangle A relationship among mem-
bers of Congress (usually committees in
Congress), executive branch agencies, and
interest groups.

line-item budgeting An incremental bud-
geting technique.

line workers Those workers at the bot-
tom of the bureaucratic hierarchy who may
represent the face of the bureaucracy to the
public.

Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act The
law that ended the spoils system and ush-
ered in the career civil service.

planning program budgeting (PPB) A
type of budgeting where the budget is orga-
nized around specific programs.

span of control When bureaucratic author-
ity is spread out among several units, with
each one performing specific tasks.

spoils system The system of staffing the
government whereby the party that won
office replaced existing bureaucrats with
people who voted for their candidate(s).

zero-base budgeting (ZBB) A budgeting
technique where the budget is organized
around “decision packages” that allow politi-
cians to make budgeting decisions based on
their priorities.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 159 3/24/16 1:48 PM

Summary and Resources

Further Reading
Fry, B. R., & Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2013). Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo

(3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Kettl, D. F., & Fesler, J. W. (2011). The politics of the administrative process (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Lowi, T. J. (2009). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States (40th anniversary ed.). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Rourke, F. E. (1984). The presidency and the bureaucracy. In M. Nelson (Ed.), The presidency and the political
system (pp. 437–468). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (A. M. Henderson Talcott Parsons, Trans.). New
York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

Wilson, J. Q. (1991). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.

fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 160 3/24/16 1:48 PM

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ The Electoral College and Presidential Leadership ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order