America's contemporary ideological presidency

A president's policy positions and performance in office has a big effect on the role of ideology in U.S. politics. To the extent that a president thinks and acts ideologically, America's national politics become more ideological. George W. Bush and Barack Obama have both operated as ideological presidents. No political leader in the United States - and probably the world receives more public and media attention than does the president of the United States. Why? Because of America's leading role in the world and the president's position as its sole chief executive who, according to the Constitution, must ensure that the laws are "faithfully executed." The many roles played by chief executives create large presidential effects on how citizens think about issues concerning ideological categories of liberalism and conservatism. Political scientist Clinton Rossiter identified several roles played by modern presidents. Obama's and Bush's conduct of these roles have contributed to our current ideological presidency. Constitutionally, the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. The president's "commander" role involves him in many issues of national security about which conservatives and liberals disagree. George W. Bush's initiation of the Iraq war in 2003 spawned much liberal dissent. Conservatives deride Barack Obama's conduct of the war in Afghanistan and his quick disengagement from Iraq as insufficiently resolute. A related presidential role is as an international leader of our allied nations. Global issues of terrorism, economic growth and inequality, and environment involve the chief executive in matters about which great ideological divisions exist between conservatives and liberals in the public and in government. Constitutionally, the president also performs the role of chief executive, in charge of implementation of a wide range of national policies. Ideological disputes regularly accompany the president's execution of policy. George W. Bush encountered Democratic and liberal opposition to his implementation of "faith-based" social services. Barack Obama's implementation of the Affordable Care Act, his health care reform, faced implacable conservative and Republican opposition. Rivals of both chief executives accused them of staffing the executive branch with ideologically extreme appointees. In addition, the president operates as leader of his party. Party leadership involves the president in ideological disputes with partisan rivals. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama frequently took to the stump to decry the wrongheaded priorities of rival partisans. The related role of leader of Congress in recent years has proven to be a strongly partisan and ideological duty of presidents. The House and Senate a strongly polarized by partisan and ideological differences. In response, recent presidents have actively taken sides in partisan and ideological legislative disputes, producing party-line support and opposition for the initiatives of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. When attempting to perform the role of leader of public opinion, presidents regularly advocate for a particular set of ideological positions. George W. Bush frequently argued for the conservative goal of limited government. As a presidential candidate in 2000, he asserted: "My concern about the role of the federal government is that an intrusive government, a government that says, 'Don't worry, we will solve your problems' is a government that tends to crowd compassion out of the marketplace." Barack Obama trumpeted liberal principles when advocating greater economic equality, as evident in this 2013 speech: "This growing inequality, it's not just morally wrong, it's bad economics. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther and farther apart, it undermines the very essence of America, that idea that if you work hard, you can make it here." In recent decades, presidents have augmented their impact by claiming new unilateral powers. Unilateral means actions accomplished by the president through his sole initiative and direction. These include executive orders, executive agreements, presidential memoranda and proclamations, and reorganization plans. Executive orders have the force of law unless canceled by majority votes in the House and Senate or annulled by a later president. Executive agreements are diplomatic accords between the U.S. and other nations of limited scope that do not need ratification by the Senate by a two-thirds majority, as do broader scale international treaties. Presidential proclamations and memoranda announce policy changes or specific ways to implement policies. They resemble executive orders but usually involve smaller scale initiatives. These constitute a handy toolkit for chief executives as they make their mark on policy and government. They are an efficient means for a president to impose his ideological vision on aspects of national politics and policy. When a president speaks and acts ideologically, he creates a large impact upon America's politics. Political debate becomes polarized and ideological divisions come to occupy national attention. At present, the presidency is a primary driver of ideology's importance in American politics. Heightened ideological conflict, brought to the fore by Bush and Obama, may well be the "new normal" of American politics. Liberals and conservatives make their battle plans around the statements and actions of American presidents, thanks to the contemporary ideological presidency. ----- Steven Schier is Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. Published: Fri, Sep 19, 2014