"The American President is a powerful figure in international politics but often appears weak in domestic politics" Discuss

“The American President is a powerful figure in international politics but often appears weak in domestic politics” Discuss

Jonathan Woodcock

The role of the US President in world affairs is enormous and possibly the single most important and powerful office on earth. The United States is by far the largest member of NATO and plays a key role in the UN, not only in its New York headquarters and agencies but also in the peacekeeping role, most recently in Bosnia and Afghanistan but in the past in conflict zones such as Korea. The foreign policy of the US can effect other states like no other country. This has been shown in the effectiveness of sanctions placed on certain regimes which the American administration has a complaint with or dispute, in particular the controversial sanctions imposed on Iraq which human rights protestors claim is hitting the Iraqi people worst. Another case highlighting the effectiveness and far reaching consequences of America’s foreign policy is the arms embargo placed on Pakistan following its development of nuclear weapons in the late 1990’s. These, along with other sanctions and embargo’s placed on other ‘rogue’ states such as Iran, Libya and North Korea show just how effective US foreign policy can be in the international community.

The US President is also seen by many to be the unofficial spokesperson of the western world, and it is usually his speeches, often on behalf of other NATO members which carry most authority with whomever the address is aimed at. Although arguably the President’s role as a NATO spokesperson has significantly reduced following the end of the cold war and the lack of a Soviet aggressor, it has assumed a new role in the ‘war on terror’ as an international ambassador for American interests, particularly in the middle east and Asia.

The position of the President as chief diplomat and also commander-in-chief of the US armed forces strengthens further his position on the international scene. The status of the American military as the 21st century’s only true superpower (although Russia and China still posses vast conventional and nuclear forces) enhances the Presidents powerful image more. This would more than likely dissuade any sane and competent national leader from attempting a war with the US or has emerged in the last few years, harbouring terrorist groups that carry out attacks on American installations or civilians.

In contrast to this powerful ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In contrast to this powerful image on the international scene, the President is seen by many commentators to have limited powers on the domestic setting. This is due in the main to the powers of the US Congress and the incorporation of the doctrine of separation of powers into the American constitution. Many foreign policy decisions have to be ratified by Congress, namely foreign treaties (of which the Kyoto climate agreement is among the most controversial) and the deployment of American troops.

The President can also have a relatively tough time passing bills on his legislative agenda through both houses, due mainly to the lack of party whipping and the issue of ‘pork barrel’ politics. The US president could possibly be described as weak in comparison to the British Prime Minister, who, assuming a working majority can take for granted his/her legislative agenda will be passed and not need parliament to ratify international treaties or approve the deployment of British troops abroad. Under the American constitution, only congress can officially declare war on another state but the UK PM would not have such problems (apart from public opinion to consider or a backbench revolt). The powers of the president can be seen as having diminished in recent years, not by constitutional amendments or new legislation but by the American public’s attitude towards the power in the hands of the President during what was known as the ‘imperial presidency’. Abuses of presidential power which were witnessed in certain incidents, mainly Watergate and Irangate lead to the American electorate demanding a ‘downsizing’ of the President’s power during the 1980’s and 1990’s

Other commentators may take the view that in fact despite the restrictions on the President as were mentioned above, he still retains considerable and formidable powers on the domestic scene. The President has the power the veto congressional legislation, grant pardons, appoint ambassadors and judges and summon special sessions of congress. These powers given in the constitution are extensive and far-reaching. It gives the chief executive the power to appoint members of the judiciary and veto bills from the legislature. This seems like a blatant disregard for the separation of powers at first glance, but certain checks and balances have been introduced officially and unofficially since the founding fathers time. The constitution can keep the presidents powers and roles clearly set out and prevents him from acting ‘ultra vires’, or beyond his powers. The 22nd amendment limited the President to a maximum of two terms in office to prevent an arbitrary regime keeping office.

The evolution of the mass media in the latter half of the twentieth century has played a large part in reducing the power of the President domestically, as his actions are more widely known and more American are kept better informed of the affairs of the day and the president’s speeches. The modern president needs to be media friendly, ‘telegenic’ and good in front of a camera or live audience.

A president’s own legislation that has been included in his legislative agenda can often run into difficulty, especially if it is introduced during the latter stages of his presidency. This is because, as a general rule the President’s party will lose seats during the mid-term congressional elections and in theory find it harder to pass bills introduced on behalf of the president. This effect is not as dramatic however, as if the same had happened in the House of Commons, and the government has lost seats as the level of party alignment, unity and whipping is far removed from the ‘toe-ing’ of the party line expected in the British Parliament. Bill Clinton’s presidency ran into trouble over his bill introducing the provision for ‘Medicare’, which was opposed by Congress. This made the President seem weak to many on this domestic policy, although at a time when he retained enormous power and influence on the international scene.

The office of president may carry little force or authority in the 21st century domestic arena in relation to other leaders, especially the British Prime Minister. Yet the status of the US president within the international community carries with it a large persuasive force, being backed up with great military strength and the American president carries relatively little official authority on the world-wide scene. Nonetheless, this shows to leaders around the world the power of America, irrespective of the lack of official status, especially to regimes which will only understand one diplomatic language; military force.