In democracies that have a presidential system, or whose constitutional and political workings lean toward such a system, the key factor that decides the success of the president’s leadership is generally not whether they exercise hard power, but whether they can make good use of various available soft powers to establish political and even moral authority for national leadership.
As the only public official elected on the basis of nationwide votes — or one of two, if there is a vice president — the president has a particular political advantage in public discourse that is scarcely attainable by other members of the political elite. This is what is called, in the words of former US president Theodore Roosevelt, a “bully pulpit.”
With such an advantageous platform from which to speak, the way an elected president uses this special power of communication is often the key factor that decides how much authority they have as a leader.
It would be a mistake to dismiss a president’s rhetoric as mere political theater, because good political theater and effective communication are the renewable energy of political authority. If a president — even a bold and decisive one — cannot persuasively appeal to the public, then all political capital accumulated on the campaign trail will soon run out.
The idea of a “public” or “rhetorical” presidency has become an important sub-field in US presidential studies. Research indicates that a US president’s statements are rarely able to actually change people’s opinions and, in a context in which politics is developing toward extremes, it is hard for a US president’s statements about policy controversies to have a decisive effect.
However, this does not mean that a president’s “bully pulpit” is just a myth — either in the US or in other democracies. Only by taking an active part in public discourse can a president set the political agenda, shape the framework of discussion, articulate policy proposals, and summon and mobilize all the political will needed for reform.
Some people might be confined by the romantic notion that “the president represents all the nation’s citizens” or worry that if the president expresses an opinion too early it will restrict the space for public deliberation, negotiation and compromise. They might therefore call for a president to curb their participation in public discourse.
However, that is probably an outmoded point of view. A president who wants to get things done should lead — and be seen leading — during the stages of sowing and cultivation. It is no good waiting for the harvest before finally making an appearance.
From his inauguration speeches and annual State of the Union addresses to smaller town hall meetings and news conferences, US President Barack Obama has often stood on the public policy front line, where he can use forthright and sincere reasoning to put his leadership into practice.
The Obama way might only suit Obama, but making full and appropriate use of the “bully pulpit” to strengthen the political authority of the presidency is a subject that all elected presidents — including President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — should seriously consider.
Su Yen-tu is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Julian Clegg
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
Deflation in China is persisting, raising growing concerns domestically and internationally. Beijing’s stimulus policies introduced in September last year have largely been short-lived in financial markets and negligible in the real economy. Recent data showing disproportionately low bank loan growth relative to the expansion of the money supply suggest the limited effectiveness of the measures. Many have urged the government to take more decisive action, particularly through fiscal expansion, to avoid a deep deflationary spiral akin to Japan’s experience in the early 1990s. While Beijing’s policy choices remain uncertain, questions abound about the possible endgame for the Chinese economy if no decisive
Actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) on March 13 posted an Instagram caption after the opening of Tiffany’s Taipei flagship store two days earlier that read: “Thank you Tiffany for inviting us to Taipei China.” We know that Yeoh knows Taipei is in Taiwan, not China, because the caption was posted following comments she made — in English — in which she said: “Thank you to Tiffany for bringing me to Taipei, because I do love this country very much.” Her remarks and the subsequent Instagram caption were reported in Taiwan, in Chinese and English- language media such as Radio Free Asia, and overseas,
China poses a dire threat to Taiwan’s semiconductor industry as it steps up efforts to poach Taiwan’s top chip talent, following the US’ implementation of stringent chip restrictions. Beijing is keen to develop its own semiconductor technologies, leveraging skilled engineers from Taiwan, Europe and other countries to circumvent US restrictions on providing China access to advanced US chips, particularly those used in artificial intelligence applications, as well as other chip technologies and manufacturing equipment. Taiwan has always contended with talent competition from China, but the situation is worsening. The Hsinchu District Prosecutors’ Office on Friday said that China’s ARK Semi and
RSS