Bargaining and Overload: Thoughts on Presidential Power
“Presidential power is the power to persuade.” This definition comes from Richard E. Neustadt, one of the foremost experts on the topic. This couplet rests on a critical premise: that a presidential communication is imbued with authority only when the audience responds. Thus, if a president is in unable to persuade, he is powerless.
There’s another step to this from Neustadt: the power to persuade is the power to bargain. Bargaining — making a deal — requires insight, analysis, and discernment. Making the right deal is linked to the persuasive powers of a president. If a president is in unable to discern what decisions will lead to the best outcomes, he is powerless.
After 589 days of the Trump administration, the President has shown a distinct inability to persuade outside his core base. He has two substantive victories — Neil Gorsuch and the tax deal — but has failed in virtually every other fight, from Obamacare repeal to building a wall to North Korean disarmament. Trump’s decision-making process has demonstrated an inability to make a deal.
Another academic voice counters that of Neustadt. Peter W. Sperlich doesn’t believe presidential power rests solely on bargaining power, as it’s “enormously costly in resources.” Instead, Sperlich believes that “the need for bargaining strategies varies directly with the importance of the issue and the independence of the influence recipient.” Presidential persuasion is tied to notions of legitimacy, duty, and pride that inform an audiences perceptions of the president.
One more point from Sperlich. He believes a president must seek out loyal help and be alert to the personal bases and the strategies employed by those working with him. The president has limits on time, energy, and capacity and is not physically or mentally able to have his hands in every aspect of executive decision making. In this sense, Trumpland has been woefully deficient. The chaotic circus, the rash of firings, the inability to build consistency and continuity within the West Wing has hampered the administration. And of course, it hurts this President’s power when so many of his closest advisors have been convicted, have pleaded guilty, are under indictment, or are still targets in the Mueller investigation.
What’s the conclusion here? Quite simply, that Trump has been a weak president. He hasn’t demonstrated persuasive ability, not outside the Twitter<>cable news echo chamber. Nor has he shown adept bargaining power (insight, analysis, discernment). And he still hasn’t created a loyal core of advisors to augment his own power as president. He’s acting — and tweeting — alone, and not doing a great job at that. And presidential history makes this clear: A president who acts alone will not be President very long.
