Rise Of The Plebiscitary Presidency Summary

In The Rise of the Plebiscitary Presidency, Professor Craig Rimmerman argues against the “plebiscitary presidency”, where the president governs through the direct support of the American people. Rimmerman argues that the Framers of the Constitution assumed that the legislative branch would serve as the central policymaking role. The modern plebiscitary presidency has been shaped by the tremendous amount of personal power drawn from the people through the Supreme Court and Congress. Rimmerman argues that the consequence of a presidentially-centered form of government that Neustadt and other scholars failed to recognize is that presidents will strive to meet the expectations that come with the new presidency to the extreme, where they will exert

Neustadt linked strong presidential leadership with a good government, and argued that presidents should be evaluated on how they achieved the presidential standards set by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He rejected the Framers’ view that the Constitution should be the chief policymaking branch and argued that the president should not be constrained by checks and balances. I disagree with Neustadt’s view, and agree with Rimmerman’s argument. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to keep the president from acting like a monarch. The checks and balances system is needed to keep the President from exerting too much power. The job of the President is to enforce the laws passed by Congress, not the other way around. In 1918, Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, a peace treaty ending World War I. The Republicans in Congress opposed the Treaty because Article X would have allowed the League of Nations to declare war without a vote by the United States Congress. President Wilson launched a nationwide speaking tour in the summer of 1919 to refute the arguments set forth by these Republicans. His power of persuasion failed to succeed. Although Neustadt is correct when arguing that the power of persuasion is key, Rimmerman is correct when fiercely arguing that presidential power cannot dominate. One person cannot run this country alone, and should not be the only one making decisions that influence the lives of every single