The Presidency: No Place for Amateurs
Kari Andren–May 5, 2008
Richard Neustadt, in his continually updated treatise, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, gives readers and aspiring scholars crucial, fundamental insight into the office of the president. Neustadt considers a well-rounded distribution of aspects of presidential power: how a president attains, protects and increases power, the effect that advisers, prestige and reputation have on power as well as the challenges and threats to that power. One of Neustadt’s assertions in particular is of interest for critique as well as for application to the current presidential race. Neustadt states: “The presidency is no place for amateurs” (151). I find this to be one of Neustadt’s best arguments; it is clearly articulated, well reasoned and tempered by considering alternative sides. This statement, while in the context of describing the need for prior experience in elected offices, is used in other contexts to substantiate Neustadt’s belief that presidents must be all-around experts to be effective leaders. As the 2008 general election in November nears, an examination of this argument and an application of it to the current race may shed light on future discussions regarding candidates’ experience and readiness to take office and be an effective leader.
An overview of Neustadt’s argument will provide a jumping off point. Neustadt identifies several realms in which presidential expertise is necessary. First, presidents must be experts on guarding their own power. Neustadt is quick to note that expertise in power does not equate to expertise in public policy. Being a “layman” in policy simply magnifies the need to be an expert on power; since no adviser, secretary or strategist has at stake the same intangible items as the president in a given decision-making situation, their advice must be tempered with his attention to guarding his own power and influence (124). This is just one example of Neustadt’s belief in the ability of the president’s perception and protection of his power to be driving forces in maintaining and increasing that power.
Second, Neustadt argues that deep experience in elected political offices is a key to a successful presidency. Neustadt says “the presidency is a place for men of politics,” and this seems logical enough. He asserts that governmental offices are the only relevant experience and that organization work and party office work are hardly adequate preparatory roles for heading the executive. Neustadt admits, though, that political experience does not guarantee a man (or, read: woman) has the other things he claims necessary for success: a feeling for direction in office, confidence, grace, humor, perspective, insight into presidential influence and hunger for the office (150-151). While he admits these qualities are not a given with experience, it is clear that candidates are less likely to possess them in the absence of relevant experience.
Finally, Neustadt contends that expertise in presidential power adds energy and productive tension to government and that it helps sustain the transformation of policy intent to actual policy results. Neustadt summarizes this point by saying: “An expert in the White House does not guarantee effective policy, but lacking such an expert, every hope is placed in doubt” (162). He recognizes that expertise alone does not equal good policy, but it is something that cannot hurt the chances. Similarly, and in agreement with Arthur Schlesinger, Neustadt believes that, given a president’s wide frame of reference and vast constituency, what he identifies as a balance for himself tends to make for viable public policy (154). The president’s expertise in guarding his power leads him to support and oppose measures as well as to initiate proposals himself. The more a president seeks power and infuses his administration with vigor, the more responses come from Congress. Neustadt reasons that Congressional energy derives from support or opposition, but first institutions must have something to support or oppose (155). Presidential expertise here as well as in all the different realms is essential, in Neustadt’s opinion, to successful presidencies.
Neustadt identifies something I have long regarded as imperative in a president (and now in a presidential candidate) in his delineation of these three primary areas of expertise. I had never previously considered Neustadt’s first argument on the importance of a presidential expertise on his own power. In a time when popular opinion tends to hold that presidents have overstepped their bounds, it hardly seems necessary to convince presidents on ways they can better assert and maintain their power and influence. When Neustadt first crafted this argument, though, presidential power was several steps behind what it is now, so I wonder how important this facet of his argument remains today. Certainly, Neustadt is correct in identifying the president’s unique situation as the only one who can fully perceive his power (150), but with the strength of the executive, I’m not convinced there is any pressing need for this idea today.
What I am convinced of, though, is the value of a vigorous president who commands results from Congress and the necessity of experience in prior elective offices. It may not seem obvious to state the importance of presidential vigor, but I agree with Neustadt that this is imperative. As Neustadt said, Congress feeds off the energy, attitude and initiatives of the president; whether that means supporting and advancing what he supports or opposing, blocking or amending his ideas, this interplay is crucial. Perhaps in the end a rejection of a presidential proposal by Congress is just as valuable as a law passed if it makes the chambers think about and debate an issue. Neustadt does not limit himself by arguing that only approval of a president’s ideas verifies the need for presidential expertise; rather he correctly allows that any end result is equally important.
It hardly seems necessary to explain why experience as a legislator-or better yet-a city councilman or governor would put presidents in a better position than someone unused to being the head of a government. As many have said before, there is no substitute for hands-on learning; so much of what a president needs to know and understand cannot come from a book or anything other than practical experience.
A March 2008 article in The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News adds a layer of complexity to Neustadt’s seemingly innocuous assertion that presidents should have held other elected offices. Brett Lieberman, the newspaper’s Washington D. C. correspondent, wrote that for the first time since Lyndon Johnson, America will elect a senator as the next president. He goes on to write:
None of the candidates on the ballot has executive experience. They’ve never run a state, city, federal agency or large corporation. So for all the debate about experience and judgment between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican John McCain, none of the three can claim to be ready for the job on day 1…(pars 2, 3).
Lieberman here makes a distinction Neustadt fails to consider: the difference in preparation afforded by different elected positions. Being a U. S. senator or a state representative is certainly good experience for a president or candidate to have under his or her belt, but is it equal to the lessons learned as the chief executive of a state? A nuanced examination of this type of distinction could, in my opinion, only stand to strengthen Neustadt’s argument.
An offshoot of Neustadt’s reasoning on expertise also caught my attention. He notes that, although expertise in various areas is a helpful factor in presidential success, the electorate wants a president who is “above politics.” This idea is solidified by the frequently employed strategy of candidates to appear as a political amateur to remove some of the distaste of having a political career. Neustadt says that the desire for an amateur is not new in American politics; it dates back at least to Dwight D. Eisenhower (162). Neustadt’s statements on the importance of expertise, contrasted with the identified want of voters for an amateur politician, create a discrepancy. This juxtaposition is exacerbated by another of Neustadt’s observations: that men whom intellectuals deem first-rate intellectuals are rarely treated kindly in government. Neustadt cites as an example the case of Franklin Roosevelt who was considered a “second-class intellect but a first-class temperament” (153). Here, a president who lacked some intelligence, presumably in contrast to other politicians of the day, was regarded more highly for his likable temperament than for sheer intellect.
Neustadt, here, is not the only writer to acknowledge the paradox of wanting an expert president yet wanting him to also be an amateur like us, unspoiled by the dirty game of politics. Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese identified this same concept as one of their paradoxes in their book Paradoxes of the American Presidency. They stated the paradox that “the President should be a ‘man of the people’ and also have extraordinary ability, charisma, heroic character and vision.” This idea is a pervading issue for the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates as they engage, almost daily, in discussions of which candidate is more in touch with voters than the other. Sen. Barack Obama’s complex vocabulary and nuanced oratorical style have led Sen. Hillary Clinton (as well as commentators and pundits) to throw out the term “elitist” in hopes that it promotes her image as a working American in contrast to his image as an educated elite.
An April editorial from The Washington Post points out this paradox and assigns some ridicule to those who hold an unreasonable double standard. Paul Farhi writes:
So much of the machinery of modern political campaigns — the speeches, the ads, the photo ops — is calibrated to convey the illusion that the candidate is One of Us, that he or she is a man/woman of the people. It doesn’t matter that those who run for president are almost always better educated, better dressed, more telegenic, far wealthier and more articulate — all in all, drawn from an elite class — than just about every voter in the country.
Neustadt is astute in observing and mentioning this paradox that, first observed by him in 1960, still exists today. That said, I would have liked to see more conclusive deductions made, given his lengthy attention to the importance of an expert president and his assertion that “the presidency is no place for amateurs.” He seems ideally placed to provide a deeper insight into the idea and how it fits within his expertise arguments, two lines of reason I saw as intertwined and inseparable, especially given the weighty consideration they have received during this year’s presidential campaign.
All in all, though, Neustadt is an important read, not merely an academic exercise. I would certainly insist that anyone considering running for president read this book. It is critical at this early stage to understand fully the implications of the office and the complex interrelationships among the different groups with whom you, as president, would have to deal. Neustadt’s observations and theories, because they were continually updated and assessed, provide an analysis of trends and presentation of ideas that carry with them historical insight. Several subjects, such as those relating to prestige and reputation and how those evolve with decision-making, are complicated matters that must be grasped immediately for presidential success. In my assessment, Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents is a book that stands to be read, perhaps, three times: when one is considering running for office, while one is in office and finally, in retrospect after one has served in office. The ideas presented should be kept in mind as one enters office, but will not be fully grasped until the person settles into the job. Finally, by reading the book after completing a term(s), presidents can reflect upon their time and fully make sense of Neustadt’s complex and valid commentary on presidential power.
Works Cited
Cronin, Thomas and Michael Genovese. Paradoxes of the American Presidency. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2004.
Farhi, Paul. “‘Elitist’: The Rarefied Term That’s a Low Blow.” The Washington Post. 18 April 2008.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703990.html.
Lieberman, Brett. “Fact is, all 3 lack key experience.” The Patriot-News. 16 March 2008. http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/120554702595540.xml
Neustadt, Richard. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. The Free Press:
New York, 1990.
