(8 of 9)
Neither is it realistic to expect "Cabinet" government, as theorists often advocate it. British-style Cabinet government is a creature of the parliamentary system. British Cabinet members are themselves of the legislature, and the Cabinet does make decisions as a collective body. In this country, every new President takes office promising a strong Cabinet of independent members, and some new Presidents take office really believing this promise. But each soon learns that there have to be limits on the individual Cabinet members' independence, and that the Cabinet as a collective body is not suited to decision making. He must have strong, able people in his Cabinet, who can manage their departments well and give him sound advice. But each department is a separate fiefdom; if there is to be coherence and direction to the Administration's policies, the President has to impose that direction from the top, cutting across the often conflicting interests of the various departments. The President must, of course, consult his Cabinet members, just as he consults the leaders of Congress. But on the larger questions only he can decide; only he can lead.
Today, even the classic argument between the proponents of "presidential government" and "congressional government" is itself being eclipsed by the rising power of the news media, especially television. Television has transformed the presidential office and also the governmental process. This is dangerous and potentially disastrous. Congress may be fractionated; it may speak in a cacophonous babble with the voices of 535 separate constituencies; but at least its structure is built around the serious consideration of questions of public policy.
Not so television. Television is a show-business medium. The evening news is a series of minidramas. But real life is not played out in such minidramas, and the real choices the President and Congress face are not framed in such neat, capsulized ways. More often than not, what is emotionally appealing — and therefore dramatically captivating — is intellectually vacuous and substantively wrong. What makes good television often makes bad policy.
Because of the pervasive impact of television, the actions of Presidents are directed increasingly toward the omnipresent cameras, and confined within the distorting prism of television news. Public debate is conducted increasingly in slogans and one-liners.
All this puts a heightened premium on "symbols." Symbols and substance are both important, but for a President to confuse the two can be ruinous. He has to use symbols and symbolism — but not as ends in themselves and not as a substitute for substance.
At the same time, television is a fact of life, and a President in the '80s will have to use television effectively in order to govern effectively. The challenge will be to find a way to use it that enlightens rather than obfuscates.