Power vs. Persuasion

Key Takeaways

• Power may get things done faster, but persuasion builds staying power
• This article examines the sitting U.S. president’s use of power and persuasion to draw lessons about the (dis)advantages of using power or using persuasion

There are competing theories about the nature of presidential power. The most famous political theory comes from Richard Neustadt, who wrote in 1960 that “Presidential power is the power to persuade.”  Neustadt argued that a president’s success hinged on his ability to negotiate with other political actors like Congress, the bureaucracy, etc. Powerful presidents would find trade-offs and balancing competing interests to bring other actors around to their preferred policies. Presidents who failed to negotiate would also fail to enact their policy agendas.

However, Researchers Moe and Howell later argued that presidential power is based on unilateral action. Congress is divided into two chambers with party competition and individual agendas related to both slowing or blocking action. For example, Republican senators may have electoral or policy interests that make them reluctant to oppose President Trump, making it difficult for Congress to collectively check the president. In contrast, the executive branch is united, can move quickly and presidents can utilize tools like executive orders to act without Congressional input. Moe and Howell argue that these advantages mean the president should always be able to set the policy agenda.

The U.S. pandemic economy: A case in power and persuasion

Ongoing economic relief efforts related to COVID-19 offer a significant test of the unilateral power of the presidency. To recap, on May 15, 2020, House Democrats passed the HEROES Act, a $3-trillion bill designed to extend enhanced unemployment benefits, increase testing and tracing and provide $1 trillion in aid to state and local governments. The Republican-controlled Senate responded by doing…nothing.

A sputtering economy is a major political problem. Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Colorado, recently wrote about the effect of economic performance on the incumbent party. While economic conditions are a rough predictor, at best, for electoral performance, our current situation would be a disaster for President Trump. There is no precedent in modern American politics for the incumbent party winning amidst mass unemployment. The president could have pushed sooner for Congress to create a stimulus, but he had little success in persuading Congress to enact his proposal. His initiative, a payroll tax holiday, found little support from Democrats or Republicans in Congress because it would defund social security and Medicare.

With benefits set to expire, Senate Republicans finally presented their own proposal, which was considerably less generous, contained no aid for states and contained a number of budget items unrelated to the epidemic (for example: $1.5 billion to renovate the FBI’s Washington headquarters.) Democrats quickly rejected the proposal and President Trump called the proposal, “sort of semi-irrelevant.”

In early August, Democratic leaders Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) met with White House officials to negotiate a compromise. Democrats had several advantages in these negotiations: They’ve already passed a bill, their party caucus is united and the items they want are popular with voters. Nevertheless, the White House refused to budge and talks hit a wall.

Since persuasion failed, the president decided to act unilaterally. On August 8, the president took executive action to extend enhanced unemployment benefits (at a reduced level and only if states divert their funding to the program), consider extending a federal eviction moratorium, impose a payroll tax holiday and further suspend federal student loan payments.

The president does not have the legal authority to do this. It is not ambiguous. Congress has the power of the purse. He cannot legally appropriate money or change tax law without Congressional consent.

But, remember Moe and Howell?

The president can delay tax collection, as he already did this year by extending the annual filing deadline to July. By unilaterally declaring a delay on collecting payroll taxes he could put Congress in the awkward position of either passing a bill retroactively forgiving payroll taxes owed or leaving millions of Americans with a very nasty surprise coming when they file their next tax return. By moving first and shifting the status quo the president can force Congress to consider implementing a policy that neither Congressional Republicans nor Congressional Democrats wanted to consider.

On unemployment benefits, the president plans to redirect aid allocated under the CARES Act or other programs. Congress is now forced to re-fund those programs or let them collapse. 

President Trump has been terrible at persuasion but successful with unilateral action. Even in a worst-case scenario, his actions could reframe the issue as Democrats blocking the president from providing aid to millions of unemployed Americans. He has already claimed, “Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have chosen to hold this vital assistance hostage,” and seeks to paint himself as a generous benefactor. It is not clear that this strategy will succeed as there are already reports that many business will still process payroll taxes to avoid a large lump sum tax payment later, and states may simply be unable to implement the presidents orders. The president’s orders may not provide any relief to struggling Americans.

What wins? Power? Persuasion? Neither?

The president’s actions show some of the problems with using power rather than persuasion.  Unilateral action undermines the logic of checks and balances and creates a situation where the presidency can become far more powerful than the framers of the Constitution intended. To make matters worse, they can also create chaos and uncertainty. Courts may strike down executive action, but the lengthy nature of the judicial process leaves Americans in a state of limbo while the case is pending.

Even if the order survives a legal challenge, the president’s orders only last as long as his presidency. The long-term outlook depends on who happens to sit in the Oval Office. For example, President Obama created the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by executive order after negotiations with Congress fell apart. Even with that shift in the status quo, he was unable to persuade Congressional Republicans to pass immigration reform making it permanent. President Trump moved to end the program, and while the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against him, it did so on narrow procedural grounds. He could still end DACA, and participants in that program are faced with the unsettling possibility of deportation. Similarly, President Trump’s attempt to end the payroll tax may last only as long as he is still the president.

President Trump is hardly the first president to use unilateral action and expand the powers of the presidency. As partisan cooperation declines, presidents may be more inclined to exercise unilateral authority in place of actual legislation to achieve their policy goals. Power is easy in the short term where persuasion is difficult, after all.

However, this trend is terrible for the long-term health of a nation. Persuasion and coalition building lead to durable laws and institutions that protect citizens. If presidents rely on power rather than persuasion that leaves Americans with a political system that combines authoritarianism and chaos.

Persuasion is the hard and necessary work of a functioning democracy.