Tough Times for the President: Political Adversity and the Sour ...

wants rather than playing its own legitimate role in the policy-making process.

As an effort to impose the president’s will on Congress, going public is intended to avoid the compromises that are required by bargaining. To that extent, it is a strategy of unilateralism.

Adversity and Unilateralism

Unilateralism is a key strategy in the president’s policy arsenal. To that extent, it is unsurprising that chief executives resort to unilateral actions and assert presidential prerogative when faced with adversity. In doing so, they draw on the wellsprings of the office’s power. Of course, Neustadt would counsel that this strategy might be alluring but is ultimately self-defeating, because persuasion is more constructive than command and will lead to better results in the end. But the history of the presidency suggests that Neustadt’s caution is wrongheaded. Would the nation have benefited if Lincoln had employed anything less than command in dealing with secession? How could Roosevelt have dealt with the presidency, either in his “Dr. New Deal” phase or as “Dr. Win the War,” without reliance on a panoply of techniques that Neustadt would characterize as “command”? Reagan’s use of command in the early months of his presidency—firing the air traffic controllers, for example—helped mark him as a formidable force in Washington and strengthened his bargaining position with Congress. Faced with the aggressive agenda of the 104th Congress, Clinton used the veto to shut down the government, which ultimately strengthened his position in Washington after the 1994 midterm elections, raised his approval ratings, and aided his reelection. Unilateral presidential power, used effectively, can promote the president’s goals.

Prerogative power lies at the heart of the presidency, and it is available regardless of political circumstances. Granted, political conditions can affect how exercises of that power will be received, but even unpopular presidents can employ unilateralism to their own advantage. Clinton certainly did: in the 1994 midterm elections, most observers agreed that