Polls and Politics: The Dilemmas of Democracy

2. Presidents, Polls, and the Paradox of Democratic Governance

2 Presidents, Polls, and the Paradox of Democratic Governance Michael A. Genovese People are unpredictable by nature, and although you can take a nation’s pulse, you can’t be sure that the nation hasn’t just run up a flight of stairs, and although you can take a nation’s blood pressure, you can’t be sure that if you came back in twenty minutes you’d get the same reading. —E.B. White Winston Churchill, commenting on the view that politicians ought to be highly attuned to public opinion (that is, “keep their ears to the ground”) reminded us that“the British nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.” To lead, or to follow the will of the people; that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of being accused of defying the sacred will of public opinion or to defy it and in so doing, attempt to lead or move the public. Presidents often find themselves in no-win situations: damned if they do, damned if they don’t; caught between a rock and a hard place. Nowhere is the dilemma of presidential governance more visible than in the relationship between a president and public opinion. Should a president “lead” or “follow”? Should a president push and pull the public toward his vision, or should he attempt to discern where the public wants to go, and facilitate the achievement of the public’s goals and preferences? Is the president an echo chamber of public opinion , or a shaper of opinion? Is the president a barometer or a leader? In a democracy,is the voice of the people the voice of God? Do we elect a president to do “our” bidding, or to make decisions, choices, and lead? 15 How do presidents use poll data? How should they? And in a democracy , what is the proper connection between leadership and responsiveness ? These questions are especially troublesome in a democracy, for there is an inevitable tension between presidential leadership and responsiveness. When and under what circumstances should a president attempt to lead? When should he follow? All this begs the question: Is there—can there be—such a thing as “democratic leadership”? Thomas Jefferson and the Vision of Democratic Leadership Democratic theorists have long wrestled with a particularly vexing question: Is there such a thing as “democratic leadership?” Or are the two words mutually exclusive, if not contradictory? Thomas E. Cronin has gone so far as to call them “warring concepts.”1 But can any system of government exist without leadership? For those who believe in the superiority of democracy over other forms of government, a way must be found to reconcile these two seemingly warring concepts into a sustainable whole. The tension between the need for leadership and the demands of democracy was reinforced by James Bryce, who reminded us that “Perhaps no form of government needs great leaders so much as democracy .”2 But what kind of leadership? The strong, forceful direction of a heroic leader, or the gentle guiding hand of a teacher? Emile Zapata warned us that “Strong leaders make a weak people,” but can the people come together and accomplish their goals with weak leadership? Proponents of robust democracy realize, as Bruce Miroff wrote, that Leadership has rarely fit comfortably with democracy in America. The claim of leaders to political precedence violates the equality of democratic citizens.The most committed democrats have been suspicious of the very idea of leadership.When Thomas Paine railed against the “slavish custom” of following leaders, he expressed a democrat’s deepest anxiety.3 But such tensions have not prevented Americans from looking to strong leaders to guide the republic. Especially during a crisis, we turn to our leaders in hopes that strong or heroic leadership can save the republic. Thus, while we are suspicious of strong leadership, we also admire and sometimes even hunger for it. As Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. noted: 16 Michael A. Genovese The American democracy has readily resorted in practice to the very leadership it had disclaimed in theory. An adequate democratic theory must recognize that democracy is not selfexecuting : that leadership is not the enemy of self-government but the means of making it work; that followers have their own stern obligation, which is to keep leaders within rigorous constitutional bounds; and that...