For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.
But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.
As we start the section of the course dealing with policy, we might discuss Halperin's point.
Presidential management of domestic policy requires knowledge of the bureaucratic complexity that we have already discussed. Take civil rights, for instance. It has many dimensions: for FDR, it was a war issue. For LBJ, it involved the FBI and law enforcement. No single agency is "in charge" of civil rights. Instead, various responsibilties belong to (partial list):
- The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department
- The Office for Civil Rights of the Education Department
- The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services
- The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of HUD
- The Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Department of Labor
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- The US Commission on Civil Rights
The "policy streams (Pika 297-302) -- problems, solutions, and politics -- are all part of a broader policy process.
1 comment:
It seems, even if only superficially, that the "campaigner equals leader" formula will not work in modern politics. Although the campaign trail and the oval office both require skill, determination, patience and devotion, once the campaign candidate enters the presidency, the president must make decisions which not only affect how the American public view him, but decisions which will affect the American economy and the world. The campainging candidate does not have to make such large consequential decisions which affect more than his or her campaign.
Post a Comment