By Jamelle Bouie
The office of the American presidency is quite peculiar.
It stands as the world’s most potent elective position. Occupying this role means guiding a nation of over 330 million individuals, supported by an extensive and complex government that influences every facet of everyday existence. You’re accountable for trillions in expenditures, managing an extensive array of civil servants—from your direct appointments, which number in the thousands, to their juniors. You possess the immense capability of the U.S. military and have immediate access to a device that could, at the touch of a few buttons, end humanity as we know it.
From the moment you awaken to greet a new day until you finally retire for a few hours of rest, your mind is engaged in a relentless whirlwind of crises and issues. You must choose which require your immediate focus and which can be delegated to the appropriate aide or secretary. Finding the time—your most invaluable asset—to strategize, prioritize, and categorize the challenges and opportunities that arrive is essential. Your administration’s success or failure will be assessed regarding numerous topics—regardless of your direct responsibility or control over them.
After all, accountability must lie somewhere.
Yet, herein lies the strangeness. The great extent of power is matched by limitations so profound that, at times, it might feel as if none exists. You can allocate only what Congress permits you to spend. You have authority to enact the law, but that authority can be limited or nullified by a Supreme Court ruling.
There are actions you can undertake through executive orders, but these can be overturned by courts, repealed by future administrations, or actively opposed by antagonistic state governments. Achieving enduring change necessitates legislative approval, implying you must entrust your aims to individuals who might not align with your interests, regardless of party affiliation. You could be a formidable presence on the international stage—leading free nations against aggression—while appearing inept or even feeble domestically. While our constitutional framework may seem skewed, favoring an executive and judiciary that appears to eclipse legislative power, the existing checks and balances can still hinder the ambitions of an enterprising president.
Those of us who observe and analyze American politics are well aware of all these dynamics when we assess and elucidate the tenure of a president. Yet, the nature of the presidency rarely influences our quadrennial decision-making about which individual will occupy it.
Reflect on the latest presidential debate. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis from ABC News pressed candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on various policy matters. Topics included the economy, inflation, immigration, border security, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and Israel’s conflict in the Gaza Strip. The moderators, perhaps heeding the desires of undecided voters for more concrete answers, analyzed the candidates on their proposals and, when warranted, sought further details.
Yet absent from this comprehensive barrage of inquiries was any discussion about the daily realities of the role—managing the executive branch, addressing crises, negotiating with Congress, simply put, governing. This is particularly striking given that both candidates have firsthand experience in these areas: one as vice president, gaining a close-up perspective, and the other through previous presidential experience.
When these matters were touched upon, they emerged only as brief comments. Trump, for instance, noted that he dismissed several officials from his administration. “I fired most of those people,” he remarked, referencing his former national security adviser and secretary of defense, who now oppose his campaign. “Not kindly. They acted poorly or did a bad job. I let them go.” He then criticized Harris and Biden for failing to dismiss anyone, asserting, “They never fired a single person.”
At this juncture, Trump was primarily venting. Nevertheless, it represented an opportunity lost to explore the candidates’ individual perspectives on presidential authority. Does the White House function effectively if the president routinely has to let go of high-ranking officials? What implications does this have for his judgment? What methods, if any, does he employ for selecting subordinates?
For those among the over 67 million Americans who viewed the debate on Tuesday, you heard about Harris’ initiative to offer tax credits to young families and small business proprietors. You listened as Trump blamed migrants and refugees for a range of issues confronting the United States. You absorbed their discussions on strategies and “plans of action.” Yet, amid the exchange between the two candidates, little was articulated regarding how either would actually make decisions—how they would approach the presidency.
As a viewer, the most you could extract were broad strokes regarding their presentations. It is evident that Trump would govern as an authoritarian, showing scant regard for the rule of law, while Harris seems poised to continue Biden’s strategy, focusing on consensus and coalition-building whenever possible.
Americans are entitled to a much more comprehensive dialogue than they currently receive concerning the duties at hand. Yes, it’s vital to understand the objectives and priorities of those vying for the presidency. They should discuss policy when relevant. However, the reality is that an effective presidency relies more on organization, vision, and values than on the breadth of any particular legislative package.
The contingencies of political life are such that policies will shift based on numerous factors—from the governing party’s congressional majority, or lack thereof, to the specific interests of individual legislators. Conversely, addressing qualitative concerns provides a stronger, more enduring understanding of how one candidate or another might operate under pressure or how they may prioritize when stress levels are low.
The presidency, as mentioned, is indeed an unusual role. Our presidential campaigns should likely hone in more on how candidates navigate what makes it so peculiar.
