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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS