The initiator or responder in chief? Reconciling two prominent theories of presidential power

Abstract Objective While there are several different ways of conceptualizing presidential power, at present, two main theoretical frameworks are of considerable importance. The dominant paradigm since the 1960s is Richard Neustadt's idea that “presidential power is the power to persuade.” Yet, persuasion is far more difficult today than it was in the 1960s, raising the following theoretical conundrum: If presidential power is the power to persuade, why is presidential power increasing, while the president's ability to persuade is decreasing? Methods Game theory and case studies were used in this study. Results One answer is that presidents now employ “power without persuasion,” as William Howell argues. Yet, presidents still require persuasion to secure important legislation. Conclusion This article reconciles these two theories, demonstrating how each describes an important aspect of the pursuit of presidential power.