In democracies that have a presidential system, or whose constitutional and political workings lean toward such a system, the key factor that decides the success of the president’s leadership is generally not whether they exercise hard power, but whether they can make good use of various available soft powers to establish political and even moral authority for national leadership.
As the only public official elected on the basis of nationwide votes — or one of two, if there is a vice president — the president has a particular political advantage in public discourse that is scarcely attainable by other members of the political elite. This is what is called, in the words of former US president Theodore Roosevelt, a “bully pulpit.”
With such an advantageous platform from which to speak, the way an elected president uses this special power of communication is often the key factor that decides how much authority they have as a leader.
It would be a mistake to dismiss a president’s rhetoric as mere political theater, because good political theater and effective communication are the renewable energy of political authority. If a president — even a bold and decisive one — cannot persuasively appeal to the public, then all political capital accumulated on the campaign trail will soon run out.
The idea of a “public” or “rhetorical” presidency has become an important sub-field in US presidential studies. Research indicates that a US president’s statements are rarely able to actually change people’s opinions and, in a context in which politics is developing toward extremes, it is hard for a US president’s statements about policy controversies to have a decisive effect.
However, this does not mean that a president’s “bully pulpit” is just a myth — either in the US or in other democracies. Only by taking an active part in public discourse can a president set the political agenda, shape the framework of discussion, articulate policy proposals, and summon and mobilize all the political will needed for reform.
Some people might be confined by the romantic notion that “the president represents all the nation’s citizens” or worry that if the president expresses an opinion too early it will restrict the space for public deliberation, negotiation and compromise. They might therefore call for a president to curb their participation in public discourse.
However, that is probably an outmoded point of view. A president who wants to get things done should lead — and be seen leading — during the stages of sowing and cultivation. It is no good waiting for the harvest before finally making an appearance.
From his inauguration speeches and annual State of the Union addresses to smaller town hall meetings and news conferences, US President Barack Obama has often stood on the public policy front line, where he can use forthright and sincere reasoning to put his leadership into practice.
The Obama way might only suit Obama, but making full and appropriate use of the “bully pulpit” to strengthen the political authority of the presidency is a subject that all elected presidents — including President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — should seriously consider.
Su Yen-tu is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with