The practice of exaggerating Presidential power continues with every media statement particularly those reporting the results of the latest public opinion poll. While one can find learned statements emphasizing the limits on this power, they are buried in opinion columns that are not widely read by the American public. Recent developments with respect to the economy and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have provided fertilizer for the crop that is already overgrown.
President’s have traditionally campaigned on platforms promising increasing job opportunities and continuing economic growth. Voters and the media take these promises seriously, and they are used as criteria upon which the President may be judged. Immediately economic indicators are claimed to represent the (pick your President) economy. In turn, they become the focus for succeeding campaigns. You may remember that James Carville , when asked what a campaign should focus upon, replied, in part, “The economy, stupid.”
This sets Presidents up to either fail or take credit for success that they only partly deserve. The national government can influence, but not control, the national economy through monetary and fiscal policy. Monetary policy is primarily implemented by The Federal Reserve Board. To be sure, the members of this body are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but direct control by the executive branch is really limited. Many Presidents have discovered this to their sorrow. The only way to affect monetary police set by the Federal Reserve is remove members, and that is not easy. The Fed attempts to influence the economy by expanding or contracting the supply of money by raising or lowering interest rates paid by banks and/or buying or selling bank securities.
Fiscal policy also involves raising the supply of money. In this case governments appropriate and spend money raised through taxes and borrowing. In the case of the national government, the President’s role is to propose such spending programs to Congress, to sign his approval if they are passed, and to administer the expenditure of the funds.
The goals of both types of policy are the same. Each attempts to affect the supply of money in order to stimulate or dampen demand. We are all told (I believe correctly) that demand, when related to supply, determines price. It is one thing to affect the supply of money, but it is the market (producers and consumers) that contributes mightily to the end result. We have, after all, a market economy. Attempts in other countries to give the power to control the market to a governmental official have been largely unsuccessful. Even the Chinese have been forced to recognize the effect of markets upon their economy.
The state of the American economy is determined by the behavior of millions of actors. The President is only one actor. He may influence at the margins, but he does not manage or control.
The current war in Ukraine is other case of media/pollster overstatement. In addition to asking how well the President is “managing” the economy, they want people to tell them how well he is “managing” the war in Ukraine. The answer is simple. He isn’t, and he can’t. Why would we think that a third party is able to control the behavior of combatants located thousands of miles away? The best he can do is attempt to influence that behavior through lawful executive action and to seek input from Congress through legislation. Even if the President and Congress were to decide to provide U.S. troops to assist Ukraine, they would be influencing, not managing. In my view, wars are waged and never managed. Any leader that tells you that he or she is successfully managing a war, probably doesn’t know what is going on on the battlefield.
It would be really useful if the public were fully informed about the complexity of the process of governing and the limitations placed on executive power in a democratic system. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if candidates for the highest office in the land would simply identify the policies they intended to address and the nature of the action that they would take, if elected. Do not promise success. Congress, the Supreme Court, other world actors all will undoubtedly muddy the waters.
It would also be helpful if those seeking to measure public opinion would frame their questions in the real world. Are presidential requests of the Federal Reserve appropriate? Is the legislation he or she proposed appropriate? Is he or she administering the laws passed by Congress faithfully? Are executive actions within the powers granted by the Constitution and Congress? Misleading the public services no purpose in a democracy, but informing the public is critical. But, you say, “people are not ready to respond to a government filled with complexity.” Whose fault is that?