What employees of the United States civil service are there in your community?

RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP

Efficient government requires strong, clearly recognized leadership.  Democratic government requires that its leadership shall be responsive to the needs of the people and under their control.  The problem of how to secure strong leadership and controlled leadership at one and the same time is a difficult one.  So far as the executive branch of government alone is concerned, the framers of the Constitution secured strength by concentrating full responsibility in the President.  But did they expect him to be their leader in the government as a whole; that is, in formulating the policies of government that should serve as the basis for legislation?  We are in the habit of thinking of him as our national leader, but was he made so in fact?

LEADERSHIP OF THE PRESIDENT

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were apparently more concerned about maintaining control over the President than about clearly making him the nation’s leader.  About the only indication the Constitution contains that he was to be such a leader is the statement that he “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Art.  II, sec.3).  He does submit recommendations to Congress at the opening of each of its terms and often at other times.  If the President and the majority in Congress are of the same political party, Congress is pretty likely to follow the President’s lead; or, if the President has a commanding personality and is clearly popular with the people, he may force measures through even an unwilling Congress.  But if differences arise between the President and Congress, especially when one or both houses of Congress are of the opposite party from the President, his recommendations may be entirely ignored.  By our system of “checks and balances” the President is “controlled,” but he ceases to be a leader when he does not have the “following” of Congress, or of the majority of the people.

President Wilson began his second administration with a majority in both houses of Congress of his political party, and apparently in popular favor.  He was clearly accepted as leader and practically all of his proposed measures were favorably acted upon by Congress.  In the middle of this administration a congressional election occurred which resulted in a majority in both houses of the opposing party.  This result might be considered as a popular vote against the leadership of the President, and his opponents did consider it so.  It cannot be absolutely certain that this was intended, for the people were not voting directly on this question.  Whether this was true or not, Congress refused to follow his leadership in many important questions, including the treaty of peace with Germany.