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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS