Essay: Reading summary: The Two Constitutional Presidencies

Reading summary: The Two Constitutional Presidencies
In this essay, Jeffrey Tulis theorizes that there are “two constitutional presidencies.” The first being the “Constitutional presidency” – the traditional concept of the presidency as outlined in the Constitution. The second being the lowercase “constitutional presidency” – a contemporary understanding of the role that relies much more on public opinion. Tulis argues that these two understandings often conflict with each other.
The Constitutional presidency is quite limited by contemporary standards. In this school of thought, the presidency is empowered and authorized by the Constitution itself. This concept places little emphasis on public opinion. Tulis notes that the Constitutional Presidency was designed with the federal system in mind – the framers regarded the presidency as one part of a bigger system and emphasized its limitations within that system.
On the other hand, in a constitutional presidency, the president is empowered by public opinion. This system still incorporates the Constitutional ideology but to a much lesser extent. Additionally, this understanding places an emphasis on active leadership. Rather than simply executing the laws produced by Congress, a constitutional president develops specific policy goals based on public opinion and advocates for their implementation. In theory, doing so secures the president’s power through voter approval.
To compare the two theories, Tulis examines a source from both the Constitutional ideology and the constitutional ideology; the Federalist papers and the theories of Woodrow Wilson respectively.  This analysis brings forth several key distinctions between the two schools of thought.
First, the two sides differ greatly on the function of representation. While the framers valued representation, they distrusted systems of direct democracy. They argued that elected officials ought to have some level of immunity from public opinion, reasoning that the majority will is not always the appropriate one. Subsequently, they established several safeguards including differing term lengths (making some officials more subject to public opinion than others) and the creation of appointed positions (rather than elected ones). Wilson valued public opinion much more than the founders. Wilson supported an “interplay” between representatives and their constituents.  In this system, representatives listen to the concerns of the constituents and in turn, the representatives educate them on their own point of view.
The theories differ in their understanding of demagoguery as well. The framers were wary of demagoguery due to its potential to develop into tyranny. For that reason, the framers tried to limit the Constitutional duties of the government to protecting individual freedoms, leaving morals and values to the individual. This narrowed down the range of issues that the government could concern itself with, leaving potential demagogues with less “ammunition” for rhetoric. Wilson shared a similar disdain for demagoguery but believed that a president had every right to concern himself with public opinion. Wilson argued that if a leader appealed to a “true and durable majority sentiment” and prioritized the “permanent interests of the community,” they were not a demagogue.
Finally, the two theories differ in their understanding of the separation of powers and the independence of the executive branch. The framers saw the separation of powers as  essential to protecting the country from tyranny. Tulis cites Neustadt’s theory that the powers were strategically separated between each branch, not just as a means of security, but to equip each branch to operate efficiently in its own unique structure. The framers designed the presidency to be independent of Congress and empowered by the Constitution. This way, the executive would be able to “withstand the temporary delusion” of public opinion. On the contrary, Wilson regarded the separation of powers as “the central defect” of American politics. Wilson believed that the Constitution’s framework lacked flexibility and the ability to adapt to a changing world. These frustrations particularly focused on Congressional inefficiency and Wilson advocated for further cooperation between the legislature and the president. Furthermore, Wilson argued that the that the presidency isn’t empowered by the Constitution, rather a “mandate” from the people.