| Chapter 1: | Presidents in Tough Times |
|
|
Bill Clinton would have been removed from office if his name had been on the ballot (polls indicated that voters would have voted against Clinton if he had been up for reelection in 1994); by 1996, after struggling with the Republican congressional majority, he won by a margin of more than 8%. Persuasion may be important, but presidential power is not just the power to persuade.
Tough times for the president—situations of political adversity—are occasions when the chief executive is likely to take recourse to unilateralism. Moreover, because these times are characterized by the absence of those circumstances that tend to support and enhance presidential persuasion, they offer opportunities to illuminate the irreducible minimum of presidential power and how it forms a foundation for the grander sorts of influence that Neustadt and others saw as the epitome of presidential influence. Political adversity is a common experience for chief executives: since World War II, every president—except John F. Kennedy—has experienced at least one period of political adversity (see table 1).
As Tatalovich and Engeman have suggested, students of the presidency need a better understanding of prerogative power. There are many approaches that can be employed to examine prerogative, but all have their limitations: all must address the context in which power is exercised; some may be influenced by the substance of issues or the personality of the president; others may be rich in focusing on one type of unilateral power but lack breadth. None of these problems should deter scholars from conducting studies to develop a better understanding of executive power.
The Plan of This Book
This book explores presidential responses to conditions of political adversity. Chief executives often find themselves in circumstances that are less than optimum, so we identify those times when conditions are especially unfavorable for presidential influence and leadership. We call these highly