In my previous post in this series I advocated for creating, ahead of elections, scorecards with a moderate number of categories (on which we can almost all agree). Then each voter should (a) weight the categories according to their own preferences, (b) score the candidates according to the information they can reasonably guess, and (c) decide which candidate they most prefer. Step (b) can be difficult, and step (a) will require introspection and is necessarily approximate, but most of the time we are not faced with a large number of candidates whose scores will be very close, so step (c) should be doable in most cases. I started with the 10 categories of presidential performance from the 2021 C-Span survey discussed in my last post,
In this post I want to think in more detail about some of the categories. iIt seems to me that most of them make sense. Most seem fairly easy to interpret: for example, Public Persuasion entails good speechwriters, delivery of speeches, how press briefings are handled, etc. There are two categories that I think need more thought: Economic Management and Moral Authority. Many voters say they use perceptions of the “state of the economy” as a major input to their voting decision (i.e. this category has high weight for them), so it is worth exploring this in more detail.
The White House website has a good summary of what the job of President of the US entails. It is a very substantial role: head of state, responsible for negotiations with foreign governments; head of the executive branch, ultimately responsible for executing the laws passed by Congress and staffing a vast array of federal agencies for that purpose; Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The role has expanded overall since the time of George Washington, as the federal government has become more influential relative to the states.
Incidentally, many countries have presidents that do only a fraction of the first of the three roles above, and many others have none at all (for example, they have a monarch who is head of state, and head of government is the Prime Minister, who is elected by Parliament/Congress to that role). Although the President is not strictly speaking directly elected, because of the Electoral College, the President is clearly the closest thing in the US system to a representative of all the voters (at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, several other suggestions were advanced by the founders of the republic, and 15 years later the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was needed, to clarify the relation between President and Vice-President).
The President also has some soft power to focus attention on issues and set a political agenda, using their access to the news media and status as representative of the people to try to influence Congress, which is responsible for the legislation that is necessary for lasting change. Major changes usually require the president’s party to control Congress. On the other hand, the President clearly has short-term, but not necessarily long-term influence, through vetoing ro threatening to veto Congressional legislation, issuing executive orders, and taking actions during fast-moving crises (not just wars, although these obviously count). Congress and/or the courts can overturn or limit the effect of such decisions eventually.
The president has relatively little direct influence on macroeconomic indicators. For example, In most countries, monetary policy has a major impact on overall economic performance. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 by Congress to oversee the banking industry and keep some control over inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Its role has expanded, and its decisions on, say, interest rates, are independently made (interestingly, although it must report to Congress regularly, it is not even funded by Congressional appropriation, but runs primarily on “interest on government securities that it has acquired through open market operations” – it makes close to $100B annually of which about 98% is returned to the US Treasury after paying for FRB operations). Members of the Board of Governors have 14 year terms. So the President, who does propose board members to the Senate but cannot appoint them anyway, clearly has very limited influence on interest rates in the short term. Fiscal (tax and spending) policy is another main area of influence of government on the economy, and presidents often have plans, but Congress must pass the relevant laws, and in any case it takes considerable time for the effects of law changes to become apparent.
It is widely believed by experts that voters place too much emphasis on macroeconomic indicators in presidential elections (for example, see this NYT article from 2017). Therefore this category should have relatively little weight in our decision-making, or we need a more subtle interpretation of what Economic Management means. The President is responsible for appointing (subject to Congress’s approval) officials such as the Secretary of the Treasury (essentially the CFO of the federal government), and pushing a policy agenda in areas such as health care, education, and infrastructure, but plans in these areas all take a long time to bear fruit (rotten or otherwise). How economic crises are handled may be an area in which the President is important. Interestingly, although the causes are not fully understood, Democratic presidential administrations apparently have been much more successful at economic management than Republicans over many decades, and have had to deal with more crises. This is worth pointing out, because opinion polls often show that voters believe that Republicans are better at economic stewardship.
Moral Authority is an interesting category, and it is also unclear what it should mean. For me, a high score in this category should be associated with a high level of ethics and integrity as applied to the job of President (for example, trying to overturn the result of a legitimate election or demanding that appointees put loyalty to the President above loyalty to the country seem bad practices). Private life should be mostly off limits. The highly partisan reaction to scandals in the private life of Clinton and Trump, for example, shows that overall we find it hard to draw the line (in any case, there is always the argument that someone holding such a position should be seen to be above reproach, to avoid being blackmailed or losing the faith of the public). Given the difficult decisions that must be made by presidents, it is probably asking too much for them to be paragons of virtue (this article is worth reading).
After fleshing out what each of the categories means to us, we will have a good approximate scorecard, complete with approximate weights for the categories. But how will we fill out the scorecard for a given candidate? I will discuss this further soon.