The Presidency and Civil Society: Will We Revert to the Mean?
The White House / public domain
Americans will elect a president in less than 100 days. The outcome will determine more than what our politics and government will be like over the next four years and beyond. We the people elect our presidents and through our votes exercise a degree of control over who leads us and how they do so. In turn, however, these leaders shape the beliefs and behaviors of the American people–including the associations, activities, and shared purpose (or lack of one) that constitute civil society.
Before reflecting on what a Trump or Biden victory would entail, let's consider the roles of the presidency that give the institution its sway over civil society. In his classic account of the modern presidency, Clinton Rossiter observed presidents play multiple roles simultaneously – e.g., Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, legislative leader, and party boss.
Actions that presidents take in these familiar roles can have a direct bearing on civil society. Examples include the Clinton Administration's sponsorship of legislation creating the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Obama Administration's use of evidence-based programs to drive social innovation.
Two other roles enable presidents to lead civil society. The first is their status as head of state – the ceremonial leader who embodies and speaks for the nation. Presidents do this in part through familiar civic rituals – pardoning turkeys and issuing proclamations at Thanksgiving, throwing out first pitches, and bestowing Medals of Freedom on exemplary Americans.
This role also positions the president to affirm the nation's values and aspirations at critical moments. Ronald Reagan provided a powerful example of this capacity in his remarks to the nation on the day of the Challenger disaster. George W. Bush did likewise when he visited a mosque in the aftermath of 9/11 to warn Americans against Islamophobia.
The other presidential role that has a significant impact on civil society is that of national opinion leader. This role originated in the Progressive Era, when Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson broke longstanding taboos and began appealing directly to the public to set the nation's agenda. New technologies have enabled subsequent presidents to do this in ever more powerful ways. Franklin Roosevelt delivered his fireside chats through the radio, Ronald Reagan mastered the medium of television, and now Donald Trump can seize control of the news cycle with a tweet.
Members of Congress and governors have had access to these same technologies, of course. But it is much easier for the media and the American public to focus on and follow one national leader in the White House. Whether we like its occupant or not, we pay attention to what the president communicates – not only about policy making in Washington but also about who we are and where we are headed as a nation.
How the president takes on and integrates the roles of head of state and national opinion leader has a significant impact on the health of civil society. Presidents can use these roles to help Americans make sense of challenges facing the nation and come together to solve them. Alternatively, presidents can emphasize our divisions and prompt us to turn on each other.
Most recent presidents have endeavored to serve as forces for unity, albeit not always successfully. George W. Bush famously came into office vowing, "I'm a uniter, not a divider." For his part, Barack Obama debuted in national politics by insisting, "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America." He refused to go along with pundits inclined "to slice and dice our country into Red States and Blue States."
Bush and Obama struggled to balance these aspirations with the demands of party leadership in the political fray, which they also had to shoulder while in office. Polarization steadily worsened during their presidencies. This pattern might suggest their initial talk of bridge-building and unity was at best a fool's errand, if not a smokescreen for partisan administrations.
I believe President Bush and President Obama both meant what they said, even if they were hard-pressed to live up to it consistently during their time in office. But for argument's sake, let's assume it was a mere guise. The past three years suggest that even if presidents pay lip service to unifying themes, it still helps hold our naturally discordant society together.
We have learned as much from the natural experiment of Donald Trump's presidency. Throughout, he has stood unabashedly as a divider, not a uniter. Trump is pugnacious and thin-skinned, quick to perceive slights and counter punch all comers. (and when you are president, the comers line up around the block). A former reality TV show host, he grasps that stirring the pot with conflict–real or manufactured-attracts and keeps the public attention he craves. His populist approach obliges him to rally "The People," i.e., his partisans, by railing against their mutual enemies: The Deep State, fake news media, liberal Democrats, immigrants, anarchists, etc.
A recent national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center makes clear how Donald Trump's leadership has polarized the country. Americans either love or hate the man. 37% of respondents say Trump is a good or great president, while 53% say he is a poor or terrible one. Only 9% say he is average. Our feelings about Biden are by comparison muted. Indeed, in the modal response, 29% of voters surveyed say he would be an average president.
The next level of data underscores the polarizing nature of Trump's presidency. The presidential election will be a referendum on his leadership. 76% of Trump voters say their choice is a vote for Trump, while only 24% say it is a vote against Biden. In contrast, among Biden voters, 67% say their choice is a vote against Trump, while only 33% say it is a vote for Biden.
Overall, 54% of respondents say they support or lean toward voting for Biden, while 44% say they support or lean toward voting for Trump. Why do Americans favor Biden? Part of the reason appears to be in how we see the respective attributes of the candidates.
By double-digit margins, Americans are more apt to see Vice President Biden as honest, caring about the needs of ordinary people, and a good role model relative to President Trump. 60% of Americans see Biden as even-tempered, while only 25% think Trump is.
The Pew survey also finds Vice President Biden enjoying double-digit advantages relative to President Trump in how much confidence Americans have in their ability to tackle significant national challenges. More of us are confident Biden can handle the coronavirus (+11%), race relations (+13%), and bring the country closer together (+14%).
The coronavirus outbreak is the kind of wicked, grave problem that requires strong presidential leadership. President Trump has not risen to the moment as a Chief Executive, legislative leader, or party leader. But perhaps his biggest failure has been in failing to lead as head of state and leader of national opinion in response to the outbreak.
In moments like this, the American people need and have come to expect the sort of guidance and reassurance that, for example, former President George W. Bush provided in this video on the pandemic. But President Trump – having salted the earth with his divisiveness, and being characteristically preoccupied with how the crisis is affecting him – is incapable of providing it.
Indeed, Trump immediately attacked Bush's call for unity by retweeting snarky criticism of it from a Fox News host. An indignant Trump went on to remind his 85 million followers that Bush had not come to his defense during his impeachment trial, "the greatest hoax in American history!"
Last week, in the wake of John Lewis's death, we saw a similar pattern of grudge-holding prevent the President from leading in ways that acknowledge and elevate others. In an interview that could have been an over-the-top VEEP outtake, the only salient fact about Lewis's life in Trump’s mind is that Lewis had not come to his inauguration.
It turns out that Lewis had not come to George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001 either. But that didn't keep Bush from going to and offering a heartfelt eulogy at Lewis's funeral in which the former President noted,
“John and I had our disagreements, of course, but in the America John Lewis fought for, and the America I believe in, differences of opinion are inevitable elements and evidence of democracy in action. We, the people, including congressmen and Presidents, can have different views on how to perfect our union while sharing the conviction that our nation, however flawed, is at heart a good and noble one. We live in a better and nobler a country today because of John Lewis and his abiding faith in the power of God, in the power of democracy, and in the power of love to lift us all to a higher ground.”
That is the rhetoric we look to our head of state, and the leader of national opinion, to provide. I don't mean to put George W. Bush on a pedestal. He is a flawed man who made serious mistakes in office (and would be the first to admit it). But he sought and still seeks to lead in ways that conform to the institution of the presidency, not the other way around. Given the monumental responsibilities invested in the presidency, there is honor and virtue in Bush’s approach to it. While their policies would obviously differ, we could expect Joe Biden to take a similar tack.
A lot can happen between now and the election. As 2016 demonstrated, we elect presidents not through national polls but on a state-by-state basis via the electoral college. That said, after experimenting with a novel and disruptive style of presidential leadership, presently a majority of Americans seem to want a return to normalcy, to an "average" presidency.
A reversion to the mean would be beneficial for our government and civil society alike. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "in a constitutional system compounded of diversity and antagonism, the presidency looms up as the countervailing force of unity and harmony. In a society ridden by centrifugal forces, it is the only point of reference we all have in common." Conversely, if we have four more years of a president who is openly accelerating those centrifugal forces, there is no telling how divided we might become.
