At Mar-a-Lago or Via Twitter?

Adapting Styles of Persuasion to the Trump Presidency

Allie Miller

Professor Holtzman

POLS 456-A

April 7, 2017
 Though the intent of America’s Founding Fathers was to create a government of

separated powers, the result instead was a system of separate institutions sharing powers. The

branches of government must constantly rely on each other to accomplish tasks. As a result of

this dynamic, the president and the legislature have long endured a complicated relationship.

Despite the struggle for power and tension, Washington must still operate and accomplish tasks

on behalf of the country. To see his agenda realized, the modern president tends to employ either

his power to persuade or tactics of going public. In Richard Neustadt’s notion of persuading, or

bargaining, the president works to convince legislatures to get behind his endeavors. By going

public, according to Samuel Kernell, the president overrides Congress and appeals to the public

for support. These tactics cannot coexist, as the way in which the president deals with Congress

is relatively contradictory in the two scenarios. To see work executed in his tenure, the president

must make a conscious effort to either go public or bargain with Congress. At the moment, the

answer to this dilemma is not obvious for the new president. President Trump is an

unconventional figure and as a result his relationships with both Congress and the public are

complex and in need of attention. At some point, he has to adapt one of these persuasion tactics

to fit his unique presidency. The question is: should he take to Twitter to talk to the public or the

golf courses of Mar-a-Lago to woo Congress?

The sharing powers dynamic of the legislature and executive forces the branches of

government to collaborate to a degree to achieve their goals. As scholars like Fisher and Pious

suggest, the implied powers of the president are limited, and calling on inherent powers can be

dangerous. Often the best option for the president is to engage in what Neustadt cites as the

power to persuade, or bargain with members of Congress and other politicians. Luckily for the

only nationally elected official in America, he can work with the formal power of the office. This
does not necessarily mean the implied powers enumerated in the Constitution, but instead the

power that comes with the prestige and natural authority that is associated with the office.

Neustadt describes the compelling nature of a conversation with the president, “few men – and

exceedingly few cabinet officers – are immune to the impulse to say ‘yes’ to the President of the

United States. It grows harder to say ‘no’ when they are seated in his Oval Office at the White

House” (Neustadt, 1990, p. 30).

The already compelling dynamic of the president couples well with appealing to the self-

interest of the target of persuasion. A politician’s endeavors (and careers) can be seriously helped

or hindered by their relationship with the president. In working with others, “the essence of a

president’s persuasive task is to convince such men that what the White House wants of them is

what they ought to do for their sake” (Neustadt, 1990, p. 30). Catering to the self-interest of other

politicians is perhaps the most important task of a president in bargaining. Ultimately, politicians

are most concerned with being reelected and to achieve this goal they are likely to behave in a

way that they believe will please the most people.

It is exactly that tacit assumption of members of Congress that often guides the president to

step beyond bargaining to go public. In going public, the president appeals to the public to garner

personal and policy support. By gathering support from the country’s constituents, the president

by default forces compliance from their congressional representatives (Kernell, 2007). Although,

like bargaining, going public certainly engages members of Congress, the avenues to

collaboration with Congress are incompatible. Instead of highlighting the benefits for

compliance, going public clearly threatens costs to politicians for noncompliance. While

bargaining to an extent involves a bit of charming, "going public undermines the legitimacy of

other politicians. It usurps their prerogatives of office, denies their role as representatives, and
questions their claim to reflect the interests of their constituents" (Kernell, 2007, p. 4). Though

common practices for presidents to employ in their legislative pursuits, bargaining and going

public are mutually exclusive; at least in terms of successful attempts, bargaining and going

public simply do not complement one another. What they do share, though, by their most basic

definitions is intent: the promotion of policies.

Perhaps most detrimental to Trump’s need to work with others is his apparent obsession

with self-promotion. In a phone interview with Robert Draper of the New York Times, the

president strayed from the topic conversation to say “we've only been here for a tiny speck of

time... we've done a lot. I think we've done more than anybody for this short period of time."

Despite his conviction about his track record or the number of executive orders he has signed,

almost 100 days into office the president has not demonstrated an ability to see a bill become a

law. The only major legislative initiative from Trump’s administration to even meet

congressional committees was the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. The intense

condemnation of the bill from members of Congress (including members of his own party) is

evidence of the president’s strained relationship with the people whose yea or nay votes will

largely decide the capacity of his presidency. Somehow, the president has to develop a rapport

with Washington’s legislature to see the promises of his campaign come to fruition.

Trump’s failure to schmooze members of Congress to vote for his health care initiative was

not due to a lack of trying. In fact, the president has tried on Neustadt’s notion of bargaining

throughout his tenure, including a March 23 morning meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White

House with members of the Freedom Caucus. The meeting did not end with an ensured yes from

all 237 Republican members of the House as Trump had indicated was his intent. Instead,

according to guests, upon being informed by Pennsylvania Representative Charlie Dent that he
remained a no on the bill, Trump "angrily informed Dent that he was 'destroying the Republican

Party' and 'was going to take down tax reform'" the president later adding "and I'm going to

blame you" (Draper, 2017). At the moment in his administration, Trump has the lowest approval

rating of any president since such data was first collected. His unpopularity does not give

legislatures any incentive to work with him. As House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said

“members of Congress vote their district; they don’t necessarily vote their president” (Phillip &

Costa, 2017). This speaks to the self-interest of legislatures that can make bargaining and going

public successful tools for the president; members of Congress are most interested in acting to

please their constituents and hopefully get reelected as a result.

Sadly, unfavorable opinions are not limited to the president, as the public also has a lack

of faith and general disdain for Congress. Gallup research shows that Americans have no faith or

trust in their own representatives. Congress approval for the year 2016 hit its all-time low at 17%

(Newport, 2016). While the implications of American’s dislike of Washington’s dealmakers

paints a dismal outlook for the public, it is something that Trump should keep in mind as he

moves forward. Trump’s lack of history with Washington is often cited as the very reason that

people voted for him. After the election, thousands wrote into The Washington Post to share why

they voted for him. Comments included “I voted for Donald Trump because, first, he will upset

the status quo in government,” “he is more of a doer than a politician,” and “I voted against a

corrupt government.” During his campaign, President Trump’s adaption of the going public

strategy involved separating himself from Washington insiders. Evident by his election, it was

successful; certainly more successful than his presidential attempts at bargaining with members

of Congress. As the president, Trump should foster the relationship that got him elected: his

relationship with the public.

 In going public as he moves forward, the president should be more tactful about what he

shares. While his use of Twitter benefited him during the election, his social media behaviors can

be seen as not presidential. In December, 82% of the public said that upon taking office the

president needed to be more careful about “the kinds of thinks he says and tweets” (Doherty,

2017). Tweets with messages to get the public involved in the political process, like his March

23 message “we are taking action to #RepealANDReplace #Obamacare! Contact your Rep & tell

them you support #AHCA” with a link to find representatives fit Kernell’s model of effectively

going public. However, such Twitter rhetoric is not featured prominently on the president’s feed;

the president’s messages can often seem inappropriate and non-presidential. As Dartmouth

College professor of government Brendan Nyhan told NPR of other presidents who employed

the model, “FDR was not giving fireside chats about why the New York Times was a failing

institution” (Keith, 2016). If the president cleans up his Twitter behavior to feature positive, non-

controversial information and foster a relationship with the public, he would likely see a positive

reaction from the people and by default their representatives.

The @realDonaldTrump’s #MakeAmericaGreatAgain rhetoric doesn’t quite fit Kernell’s

modest 1987 definition of going public, and Neustadt likely never envisioned the president

partaking the aura of his physical surroundings in Mar-a-Lago. Frankly, even in the first few

days of November 2016, many Americans could not conceive the idea of a president quite like

Donald Trump. Despite the odds, though, the 45th President of the United States will soon

happen upon his 100th day in office. This anniversary comes with little substantive achievement

attached, as the president has not seen a single successful legislative endeavor enacted. Trump’s

failure to prompt legislative progress highlights the importance of working with Congress to

some capacity. His attempts at bargaining have fallen short, as legislatures have little incentive to
work with the unpopular president. At this point in his career, Trump’s best option is to go

public. In doing so, he can simultaneously get Congress to support his measures and mend a

dismal relationship with the public. The caveat to this is that Trump must be more cautious in his

conversations with the public, as his current rhetoric often reads negative. If Trump can prove

legislative success by going public, he may have more options to work with Congress in different

capacities moving forward.

 References

Doherty, C. (2017). 6 things we’ve learned since the 2016 election. Pew Research Center.

Draper, R. (2017). Trump vs. Congress: Now what? The New York Times.

Keith, T. (2016). Commander-in-tweet: Trump’s social media use and presidential media

avoidance. NPR.

Kernell, S. (2007). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, D.C.:

CQ Press.

Neustadt, R. E. (1990). Presidential power and the modern presidents. New York: Free Press.

Newport, F. (2016). Trump’s three challenges as CEO of government. Gallup.

Phillip, A. & Costa, R. (2017). Trump remains the center of attention but he’s increasingly

isolated politically. The Washington Post.

The Washington Post. (2016). Why I voted for Trump.