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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS