The Elfin Blog

Note: This paper, originally written by me in the Spring of 1999 for Prof. Dean Lacy at The Ohio State University (Poli. Sci. 501), is far from my best work. If I recall correctly, I received a B- or C+ on it, and that was a gift. It is presented here for those two or three of you who might be interested in such things to read, ponder, and evaluate. For the college student out there who is reading this because their term paper is due in 10 hours and this happens to be on the right subject and darn close to right length, I ask you to please do your own work. I myself wrote this in about seven hours, so you should quit reading this and get to work on your own damn paper, there’s still time. If you are a professor reading this because it is strikingly similar to one of your student’s papers (or maybe you even want to comment on this paper), please let me know. In any case I will stop blathering and let you get on with it.

Abstract

The American presidential system has evolved over a period of over two hundred years, and as such has become wholly unique and unfit for export to a developing country. Two main forces, now integrated into and a part of the American system make duplication of our government almost impossible. These two forces are the media and the American president’s use of it, and the contradictory nature of the American people, at the same time indifferent and demanding of the president. These factors, while ironically helping to maintain stability in our own political arena would quickly rip a developing presidential system apart. It is for these reasons that, while a great deal can be learned from the American presidential system, it cannot and should not be duplicated.

The Unique Presidency: The American Media and Culture in Our Presidential System

The United States has for over two hundred years enjoyed a stable presidential system of government marked by smooth transitions of power and remarkably fair, free elections. These circumstances alone are unique in a world where almost every attempt at a presidential system of government in other nations has failed. Moreover, the American presidential system is unique for the amount of power and prestige bestowed upon our president, who is ultimately the symbol of America for the world to see. This unique system of government has evolved dramatically from the government envisioned and laid out in the Constitution, and is no longer a system that can be exported to new, budding countries with much hope of success. The American style of government is unique for two primary reasons that cannot be simply mimicked by a developing nation: the media, and the American culture.

The first major element to the singularity of the American system of government is the widespread presence and force of the media in the United States. Bert A. Rockman says in his book The Leadership Question, “The media…interact with political structure, and they are influenced by elements of our culture.” (1984 p. 71). From the first radio addresses by Franklin Roosevelt to the omnipresent CNN, communications technology has transformed the way the American president communicates with the citizens he leads, the executive branch he runs, and the Congress he deals with. The president must use the media to convey his desires and thoughts, and in this ‘going public’ the modern presidents have changed the face of leadership in this country (Kernell 1986 pp.1-2). This factor, while certainly present in other countries, does not have the force or relationship with the leaders of other nations as it does with our president. The presence of the media is not something that can simply be factored in or taught to a developing country. It is a presence that has developed with America as her culture has, becoming a part of her culture so that one will not exist without the other (Stuckey 1991 pp. 5-8, 10).

The second major reason, then, that we cannot package and export the American system of government is the American culture. Our culture has been a sustaining force for our system of government while at the same time constantly holding it in check. This dichotomy is truly unique and one that is continuously in flux. The very stability of our government is result of the American peoples’ interest or lack thereof in our leaders. The American public’s amazing ability to at the same time be ambivalent to our leaders and then to place extraordinary demands on them is truly a portion of our system that is not to be duplicated elsewhere (Edwards & Wayne 1999 pp. 39-40, 405).

This paper will examine the presence and force of the media in American politics and in its description will show that it is not a force to be bottled and given to another nation. Further it will show that the strategy of using the media is a unique and major factor in the politics of America, and is not for a blossoming new government. I will then show that two aspects of American culture, our indifference to our government and our high expectations for it, are forces that have developed in opposition to each other over time and cannot (and probably should not) be imitated. I hope to show that the American system of government is too unique and developed to have a new country adopt it. It is due to our singular culture that has allowed our system to function so well for so long, and simply imitating our Constitution is not enough in this modern world, while copying our current style is impossible.

The Force of the Media

One major force that precludes the export of American style government is the media, and chiefly television. The United States has unparalleled access to sources of information through the use of communications technologies such as television, which reflect and influence American society (Edwards & Wayne 1999 p. 178). Since Franklin Roosevelt first addressed the American people on the radio, the ways in which the president communicates his desires to the public have been changed dramatically (Stuckey 1991 pp. 29-39). While the messages of our presidents and their goals are often similar to the ones of our early leaders, the way in which they communicate these thoughts now happens literally as fast as the words spill out of their mouths (Stuckey 1991 p. 133-138). Because the president has such instant access to the American people, the media has become an integrated part of our political process. It would be difficult to incorporate this aspect of our presidential system into a strategy for exporting an American-style presidency to another nation.

The pervasiveness of television and instant news organizations such as CNN pose challenges to the American people, let alone citizens of other countries not familiar with the kinds of rhetoric a televised presidency produces. In a presidential system that is democratic, such as ours, it is the people who supposedly make the decisions on the direction the nation should take. Continuous updates on television and the making of instant news does not allow time for proper reflection on public issues that would otherwise merit more reflective thought by the American people (Stuckey 1991 p. 140). Imagine now a citizen of a developing nation, even if they are fortunate enough to have access to a television, trying to grapple with monumentally important issues to the political development of their new country being flung at them one after another every half hour. While this certainly was not considered by the founders of the United States, it must be by the framers of any new constitution being written for a new nation, or a nation in flux. The force of the media in a democracy is powerful and must handled carefully. This, though, cannot be taught to a people, but a balance between the media, the citizens, and the government must develop over time, as it did in the United States.

With the force of the media being what it is on the American culture and political system, it is of little wonder that the president would find new ways to use it as a tool to win political battles. The strategy of using the media to appeal to the people outside of the traditional political arena is a technique that has been honed to a fine art in American politics, and is now a key weapon in the arsenal of the president (Edwards & Wayne 1999 p. 133). While this is unimpressive to most Americans, it is crucial that any new president in a developing presidential system understand this, as it is a skill he or she also will be compelled to use for better or worse.

The strategy of using the press as a political weapon is best described by Samuel Kernell in his book Going Public, where he describes this phenomenon as “…a strategic adaptation to the information age.” (1986 p. 2). Few governments in the world are as in tune with the information age as the United States government, and again, this is not a portion of our presidential system than can be packaged for export to a developing presidential democracy. In fact it could be counterproductive to do so. Kernell describes ‘going public’ as being at odds with the more traditional democratic process of bargaining (1986 pp. 3-6). In developing democratic systems, where bargaining and compromise are necessary to the formulation to a stable government, this modern political tactic could undermine the very fabric of a new presidential system. Even if a prospective president in a developing presidential system were to master the skills of manipulating the media and appealing to the citizens, “…going public undermines the legitimacy of other politicians.” (Kernell 1986 p. 4). This is not a desirable effect in a nation attempting to develop a new system of government, presumably because of the instability or ineffectiveness of the previous one. ‘Going public,’ while a powerful tool of the American president, and a characteristic of American political life that is no doubt here to stay, is the product of over two hundred years of presidential evolution in this country, and as such has rendered the American presidential system in its present form ill suited for export to a nation whose own culture is unlikely to accept it.

The American Culture of Contradiction

The culture of the American people is a unique and strange one, influenced by commercialism and marketing campaigns, the entertainment industry, technology, and the press, among other things. Ours is a culture of popularity, where the more the people like something, the more they want it, and the more money there is to be had by exploiting that desire. Furthermore, when an item, or person, or service is deemed to have fallen out of favor in the public eye, it falls by the wayside as quickly as it was taken up. Whole careers are made by simply attempting to interpret the whims of the American people. The political arena in this country is no different. A striking set of characteristics of the American culture are the apparent indifference of the people to their government on the one hand, and the high, often contradictory expectations they place on the government when it is seen as being needed on the other (Edwards & Wayne 1999 pp. 96, 101-107). The American style of government encourages these attitudes as does our culture. It is this tumultuous, symbiotic relationship between president and people that have sustained, in no small part, our uniquely developed system of government, and is another major reason why our presidential system is not a viable solution for developing governments.

One fascinating and disturbing aspect of the American culture is the apparent lack of interest most Americans seem to have in the political process in this country. In the 1996 presidential campaign, only about 49% of eligible voters exercised that right in the general election. This is not a new trend and it is not one that seems to be reversing itself. While public indifference is high, this in itself is not necessarily a danger to exporting our presidential system of government. However, it is a lesson that must be taken into account by a new government to prevent what in effect can become minority rule. Many question in our own system whether or not it is wise to encourage voting without at the same time making efforts to disseminate good information on the prospective candidates (Edwards & Wayne 1999 pp. 39-40). A budding democracy would be inherently unstable if a president were elected by even half of the eligible voting population. This, again, is not a condition which should be fostered or allowed to develop in an already uneasy political environment such as that expected in any new government, and for this reason must be combated in any attempt to establish a new presidency. It is in no small part due to the minority of concerned and informed voters, such as special interest groups, that our own system has not decayed into some form of dictatorship. However, high demands on a president and special interests pose their own dangers.

Another aspect of American culture that is unique to our presidential system and not for export are the high, often unrealistic and contradictory demands some citizens place on the President. Bert A. Rockman, in Executive Leadership in Anglo-American Systems, says, “The American political system places large and often contradictory demands on its presidents. The president is expected to take the lead without also holding the reins of government.” (1991 p. 54). Like our political system itself, the American public has similar expectations for our chief executive. One example of this is the desire to curtail and limit spending by the federal government, just as long as budget cuts do not effect popular programs. The problem is, of course, that any program is popular among some voters, otherwise it wouldn’t be a program in the first place (Edwards & Wayne 1999 p. 405). It is an interesting characteristic of the American people to be critical of and want more from their government, but not want to sacrifice anything for it. When, in fact, the government does manage to cut spending, for example, the president takes the blame for the loss or curtailing of the affected programs. Some may say that this is the nature of presidential politics, and they would be correct. However, the unrealistic expectations of the American public cannot be exported to a new presidential system. No president in a new government could withstand the onslaught of contradictory public messages similar to those that are sent by the American public, and which are now incorporated into our own political system. The citizens taking part in a new democratic presidential system must be realistic about what a chief executive can and cannot do, and not be misled by the goals our own president seems to either fail at or to accomplish.

One final thorn in the side of the presidency and facet of the American presidential system that could not reasonably be incorporated into a new government are special interest groups. The nature of a presidential system seems to encourage them and yet they could easily prove too much for a newly elected president in a recently formed government to handle (Edwards & Wayne p. 12). In their introduction to Executive Leadership in Anglo-American Systems, Colin Campbell and Mary Jane Wyszomirski argue, “In the current era…the epicenter of executive leadership has shifted so that presidents and prime ministers focus at least as much attention to mending fences with political organizations outside of government…” as they give to “…organizational structures and resources…” within the government (1991 p. 28). In a newly developed presidency it seems necessary for the new chief executive to be able to be free of special interest, single issue voters that would threaten the stability of a new government. It is ironic that the network of special interest groups and lobbyists that are so much a part of the American style of government would undermine the development elsewhere of the very political process which they help to feed and maintain in our own nation. This once again is an example of why our singular and evolved system cannot be duplicated in another country, without first experiencing a similar evolutionary process.

Conclusion

The uniqueness and singularity of the American presidential system is the product of over two hundred years of political evolution in this country. The presidency has grown in size and scope and has come to fill many roles that were originally not foreseen. While a presidential system may be instituted in a developing country, the particular brand of the American presidency is not capable of being duplicated, and it would be unwise for anyone to deliberately try. Forces that contribute to the stability of our own government could easily topple those of other countries, and for that reason it is apparent that the American system of democratic presidential government can only work in the United States. Two of the strongest of these forces are the media and our culture.

The media in The United States is a prime factory of culture for us and drives and shapes the opinions of every American in one way or another. It is a force in the United States unmatched in influence and power. The instant access to television for most Americans and the technological leaps in communication are simply two of the unique factors that at the same time create instability in the political lives of people and help to ensure the public eye is always on the government. This interwoven relationship between our government and the media is not transplantable to other countries, as few cultures are as influenced by television as America’s.

The media is such a powerful force in the United States, the president has come to use the media as a political weapon against those politicians how would otherwise not cooperate with presidential policy choices. ‘Going public’ has become a political ally of the president, but not without its costs. Appealing directly to the public for support with such immediacy as is afforded by television can be dangerous. It undermines the traditional mechanisms of presidential politics and it is only in a system as stable as ours that this can work safely as often as it is used. As a tool, then, it has become an integral part of the presidential arsenal in the United States, but if our presidential system were to be exported, this tactic would have to be removed or at least tempered with forethought before unleashed on a public or legislature unfamiliar with the trappings of presidential politics.

The strongest force in American politics is our own culture. The American people are of a contradictory nature. One of these contradictions is the ambivalence of the American public to the political system which grants its people the freedoms they claim to so deeply cherish. There are often little more than 50% turnouts for presidential elections, and the winning candidate usually does not win by a huge margin. This is dangerous in any democratic system and can lead to the rule of a minority. The American people are continuously in danger of being misrepresented and misunderstood because of their lack of interest in government. Ironically, though, it is typically the informed voters who do turn out at the polls, creating the question of whether it is prudent to have an informed half, or even majority, of the population voting in the first place. Simply put, this aspect of American culture, while disturbing, is also a balancing force in our political arena, and has become, like the media, inseparable from our presidential system. This phenomenon would be difficult if not impossible to account for in a developing presidential system based on ours.

A counter force in the United States to the indifference of the American public are special interest groups and lobbyists for those groups. Once again, these groups have grown out of the two hundred years evolutionary process of the American presidency. They are a powerful force in American politics and continue to require more and more of the president’s time. Anytime the president as policy maker wishes to push an idea into action, he must spend large amounts of time negotiating the mine fields laid by these groups to either stifle presidential action or encourage actions in opposition to the president’s agenda. The singularity of purpose of these groups is an American cultural invention, and would be a powerful destabilizing force if introduced into a presidential system still in its infancy.

It has been shown here that there are forces, chiefly the media and the culture it helped to create, interwoven into the very fabric of the American presidential system that would tear a developing presidential system apart It seems clear that the American system has become too highly evolved and complex to attempt to export it to a budding democratic nation. This is not to say that a presidential system cannot work in other countries, as it certainly did work for the United States. However, to simply model a new government on our own system as it is now would be a fatal mistake, as would simply mimicking our own Constitution, which would not take into account the forces discussed here which must be considered in any modern presidential system. “To reconstitute political institution is one thing; to reconstitute a society and its culture quite another. The first seems unattainable while the second seems inconceivable.” (Rockman 1984 p. 239). The American presidential system, like the American culture, is rife with contradiction and irony. To transplant this system into a country with a developing government, without first allowing two hundred years to prepare for it, would destroy that nation.

References

Campbell, C. & Wyszonirski, M. J. (eds.) (1991). Executive Leadership in Anglo-American Systems. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Edwards, George C. & Wayne, S. (1999). Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Kernell, S. (1986). Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Rockman, Bert A. (1984). The Leadership Question: The Presidency and the American System. (American Political Parties and Elections. G. M. Pomper, Gen. Ed.). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Stuckey, Mary E. (1991). The President as Interpreter-in-Chief. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.

As usual this, and all works on this site, are the sole property of Tom Kersey. All rights reserved.