Representing the People

When it comes to representing the American people, the president should be a politico, one who bases their decisions on whether the American people are knowledgeable on an issue or are not. I think a president should be a delegate whenever he or she can, representing the opinions of those she represents, but that’s not always possible. The president can’t please everyone, and sometimes it’s important that the president make decisions for her constituents. For instance, the president should make decisions about the federal reserve for her constituents. Since not that many people care about it, it’s likely that not that many citizens are well versed in that topic, so the president should make decisions for her constituents in that area, acting as a trustee. However, when it comes to education, where people are highly affected by decisions made, the president needs to accurately reflect the views of the people, being more of a delegate.

The positive points to being a politico is that the people will hopefully feel that the president is accurately representing them on issues that they care about. The down side is that the president might be viewed as a weak president because he doesn’t simply make decisions for his constituents, but instead tries to please everyone. By being a politico or a delegate, the president could get caught up in trying to please everyone, which is impossible. In an attempt to please everyone, the president might waver on decisions, coining him a weak president.

Ideally, the president should try to represent all citizens. It’s not fair for him just to represent the electorate or members of his political party. He is the president of the United States, therefore it’s his job to represent the whole country.

However, it’s not as simple as that. Although it’s ideal to have the president represent all citizens, it’s impossible. He can try, but a man who lives in Washington cannot possibly represent all citizens. If you’ve never been poor, it’s very hard to represent the poor. If you’ve never been in the military, it’s very hard to represent a veteran. I think it’s the job of Congress to represent their constituents. Members of Congress are expected to talk to their constituents and vote in favor of their needs. They can do this because they specialize in a particular part of the country. One man cannot be expected to represent the needs of all the people of the United States.

Although this isn’t ideal, I think the president should represent his or her political party. When the president runs for office, he is basing his stances on issues based on his political party. When Obama passed the health care bill, he didn’t do it for the Republicans. He also didn’t do it to represent the people because not everyone wanted the bill to pass. He did it to represent his political party and the people who support his issues. It’s impossible for the president to make everyone happy, and if he tries, he’ll just be wasting time.

However, there are times when I think a presidents role of representation can take various forms. For instance, I think a trustee is necessary in times of war or with foreign affairs. When we're in war, the president needs to do what he thinks is best for the American people or for other foreign bodies. As commander in chief, it's his job to know foreign policies better than anyone in the country and to make decisions. The American people are not very well versed in foreign policies, meaning often times our point of views aren't necessarily relevant.

When dealing with health care, I think it's essential that a president acts as politico. He needs to accurately represent the views of the people because it's a highly cared about issue, but at the same time, he needs to be a trustee that says I ran on the health care bill, you know what you were getting when you elected me and I know what's good for you.

Also, constituents shouldn't expect their president to be descriptively representative, meaning that because he or she belongs to your demographic group, that means they are better representatives of their political needs. Constituents shouldn’t expect this because look at Obama. Just because he’s black doesn’t mean he represents the needs of all black people. He represents the needs of wealthy, educated black people, but he doesn’t represent the needs of poor black people or black people who are Republicans. The same goes with presidents who are from your state. Just because the president is from your state doesn’t mean that they understand what is important to you. Yes, they will have a better idea than other presidents, but that doesn’t mean they came from the same social class as you or feel strongly about the same issues as you.

Although media is more available today than it was 20 years ago, people are still just as unknowledgeable about current events as they were 20 years ago, according to a study published in 2007. In 2007, only 69 percent of the people surveyed could name the current vice president, while only 66 percent knew the name of their state governor and only 68 percent knew that America has a trade deficit. More people knew who Beyonce Knowles was than Nancy Pelosi. Only 55 percent of the population knew that about 3,000 troops had died in Iraq and only 34 percent of the population knew that the new minimum wage would be $7.25 an hour. With statistics like these, it's essential that a president is a politico, one who is representative as a trustee or a delegate depending on the knowledge of the issue by the American people. If the American people aren't knowledgeable about a issue, then the president needs to act as a trustee who makes decisions for the people because they can't do it for themselves. However, when the American people are knowledgeable about issues then the president needs to listen to the American people before making decisions.

Roosevelt vs. Taft

How much power should the president have? It’s a question that is debated even by the people that hold the office.

Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft have very different opinions about how to run an executive branch. Teddy Roosevelt believed in the “stewardship theory,” meaning that the president could do anything that was not forbidden in the Constitution. Roosevelt believed that “there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy in modern times.” He believed that a president should use every ounce of power available to him. Roosevelt is often credited with bringing aggression and leadership to the presidency. At the same time, when he sent troops to Cuba in 1906, many people criticized him for not consulting Congress.

Taft, on the other hand, believed in strictly following the Constitution.

“The true view of the executive functions is, as I conceive it, that the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise. Such specific grant must be either in the federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest. . . . The grants of executive power are necessarily in general terms in order not to embarrass the executive within the field of action plainly marked for him, but his jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional or statutory provision, or it does not exist.” – William Howard Taft

Taft’s view of the presidency can be viewed as constitutionally correct. The Constitution states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Although the Constitution is vague, it’s clear that the president is supposed to receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Although Taft did not see himself as a weak president, people could argue that a president who doesn’t show authority and enforce in a strong executive isn’t effective. By following Taft’s view, the president is less likely to accomplish as much during his or her term as a president who follows Roosevelt’s beliefs.

I think a hybrid of both Roosevelt and Taft is best. Although I like Roosevelt’s reasoning, I must agree with Taft that the president should not have too much power. I’ve always seen Congress as a very powerful branch of government, and if the executive is given too much power, then it takes away power from Congress. In many ways, representatives in Congress know the American people better than the president does because they interact with their constituents more often. When it comes to passing a bill such as the recent health care law, I think it’s important that we follow Taft’s model. The president shouldn’t be able to pass a piece of legislature of that size without Congress’ approval.

However, I do believe Roosevelt’s theory is good in times of war. For instance, after an event or natural disaster such as September 11, the president needs to be able to make quick decisions without the approval of Congress or other powers. Giving this much power to the president during times of war or natural disaster could be good and bad. If the president messes up without consulting others, it could be detrimental to one’s presidency. But if the president makes a quick decision that is effective in times of tumult, it could benefit the country. It’s the American people’s job to elect a president that can lead during dire circumstances. Our Congress is known for taking a long time to make decisions and pass legislature, therefore when the country is in a state of emergency it’s important that the president can make a quick decision.

Atthe end of the day, the Constitution is vague enough that the president in power can decide what kind of executive he or she wants to conduct. Although I believe in a hybrid of both Taft and Roosevelt, it ultimately depends on the personality and characteristics of the person in office.