An effective domestic policy president must be expert in two areas: working with Congress to effect real change, and using his pulpit to gain the support of the American people for his programs. If he can accomplish those two difficult tasks, he can have a successful domestic presidency. Effective presidents have a vision for the country and the ability and character to adhere to that vision and bring the country along with him. In other words, he must be a combination of John Kennedy, LBJ, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
And there is one huge factor that can stop the most effective chief executive in his tracks -- an opposition Congress. It takes a crisis for an executive branch and legislative branch of opposite parties to allow a president to effect needed change, and that change usually is limited to the ongoing crisis or war. It is evident with his own party's opposition to President Obama's healthcare proposal how difficult effective change can be.
The Presidency Ascending...
The presidency, or executive branch, is more effective in its role of domestic policy-making due to its role, granted powers, and organization, and not due to its affectivity or ascendency in accomplishing that role. In other words, the presidency, even under a weaker domestic president, could easily be more effective at domestic policy-making than another branch because the executive branch has been organized to do it and knows the processes by which it is done.
The presidency's ascendency in domestic policy-making can be steady or meteoric. It can also fail just as quickly.
However, because of the many tools a president has at his fingertips to enforce and influence, the rise in the executive branch's power on the domestic front has been rising at a steady pace in the hands of presidents who know how to use it. And, again, it is because of the tools they have at their disposal with which to influence and persuade -- his implied powers.
As an example, the president has the right and power to add his perspective...
President Bush used such a tool to add wiretapping to the Patriot Act. In another case a president used an executive agreement to skirt the limits of a treaty. The treaty has to be approved by Congress; the executive agreement does not.
Many other such weapons exist in the president's arsenal of shaping both domestic and foreign policy (Rudalevige, 2009).
Congress does not usually go peacefully into the night with whatever the president wants to do unless they are in agreement with him down the line. Again, as in the healthcare debate we have a president and a Congress of the same party, yet both the House and Senate are fighting tooth and nail to both disagree with the president and present their own version of the legislation.
It recently passed the House, but with 49 democrats on the negative side.
Normally, as Congress feels there is something in it for themselves, they will make the magnanimous gesture and deliver additional duties or power to the chief executive. In 1996, Congress voted the line-item budget veto to President Clinton. Shortly thereafter, that legislation was challenged as unconstitutional by six senators -- including those of his own party.
Bibliography
Grant, A. (2004). The American political process. New York: Routledge.
Mount, S. (2001, November 30). Constitutional topic: Separation of powers. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Usconstitution.net: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html
Rudalevige, A. (2009). The President at work: Domestic policy. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from millercenter.org: http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/policy/domestic
Sullivan, K. (2006, November 5). Separation of powers. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from philosophytalk.org: http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/SeparationPowers.html
Thisnation.com. (2008). American government and politics online. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Thisnation.com: http://www.thisnation.com/executive.html
