At the same time, history and experiencerntaught Americans that “safety andrnordered hberty cannot exist withoutrncompetent government and that governmentrnwithout executive authority isrnno government at all.” Cautiously, theyrnput aside their fears and suspicions ofrnpower, and, in devising a new instrumentrnof government, also invented arnnew chief executive office to administerrnit. hidispensable to those proceedingsrnwas George Washington. “It is no exaggerationrnto say,” writes McDonald, “thatrnAmericans were willing to venture thernexperiment with a single national republicanrnchief executive only because ofrntheir unreserved trust in George Washington.”rnWhat was it about Washington’srncharacter and demeanor that inspiredrnthe almost boundless admirationrnand irrepressible devotion of his countrvmen?rnWashington’s military accomplishmentsrnduring the Revolution establishedrnhis reputation; his political career securedrnit. Intuitively understanding thernsignificance of the presidency, he sawrnthat his every action fixed a precedent.rnI le also recognized that his function asrnPresident was as much ceremonial as administrative.rnThe constancy with whichrnhe fulfilled his obligations brought dignitvrnto the office and respect for the newrnnation at home and abroad. Moreover,rnas McDonald discerns, Washington wasrnthe first great political actor in Americanrnhistor’. As commander in chief duringrnthe Revolution, he engineered victoryrnagainst overwhelming odds. After thernfighting ended, he allayed the threat ofrninsurrection among his subordinates, remindingrnthem that he had “grown gray”rnand “almost blind” in the service of hisrncountry. To take up arms against it nowrnwould be an abomination. Relinquishingrncommand of the Army to Gongressrnconstituted an integral act in Washington’srnpolitical drama. Here was no Sulla,rnno Gaesar, no Cromwell who wouldrnforsake republican liberty. Washington’srndisinterested love of country, McDonaldrnconcludes, enabled his contemporariesrnat least to contemplate institutingrnthe office of President.rnMcDonald asserts that since Washingtonrnretired from public life in 1796,rn”the caliber of people who have servedrnas chief executive has declined erratical-rnIv but persistently.” Subsequent Presidentsrnfrom Thomas Jefferson, AndrewrnJackson, and Abraham Lincoln in thern19th century to Theodore Roosevelt,rnWoodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt,rnLyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, andrnRonald Reagan in the 20th have maderndefinitive though not always salutaryrncontributions to the presidency. Despiternthis troubled history, McDonald contendsrnthat “the presidency has been responsiblernfor less harm and more good,rnin the nation and in the world, than perhapsrnany other secular institution in history.”rnHe may be right. Compared withrnthe upheaval that often attends politicalrnchange in other nations, the transitionrnfrom one President to another in thernUnited States represents a model of stability,rndecorum, order, and sanity. Butrnthere is more to good government thanrnthe peaceful transfer of power. McDonald’srnjudicious analysis of what thernpresidenev has become in our time beliesrnor at least raises serious questionsrnabout his conclusion.rnThroughout his study, McDonaldrnregisters the vast and growing divergencernbetween popular expectationsrnand presidential accomplishments.rnQuite simply. Presidents can no longerrnlive up to the image of themselves thatrnthey and the media concoct. They canrnno longer keep all—or even most—ofrnthe promises that they make to win elections.rnBut the problem, as McDonaldrnrecognizes, goes deeper. Americansrnhave never decided what kind of Presidentrnand, indeed, what kind of governmentrnthey want. The enduring dilemmarnof American political life remainsrnthat we as a people are no more contentrnwith a strong executive and an energeticrnnational government than with a weakrnexecutive and an enervated national government.rnMcDonald notes that “Pollsrntaken by the American Institute of PublicrnOpinion since the 1930’s have reflectedrntwo unchanging popular attitudesrntoward the presidency, namelyrnthat the people want strong, activistrnpresidents and that they distrust and fearrnstrong, activist presidents.” Such indecisionrnensures recurrent ambiguity inrndefining the presidency. The expandedrnresponsibilities but diminished capacitiesrnof the office have only intensifiedrnthe afflictions of modern Presidents.rnNow no longer merely the chief executivernof the United States, the Presidentrnleads the free worid. The persona ofrnworld leader entails imposing burdensrnthat few can bear for long.rnTo make policy, for example, the Presidentrnmust sift through a bewilderingrnassortment of information that frequentlyrnproduces not clarity, coherence,rnand precision, but confusion, disarray,rnand turmoil. To complicate matters,rnpresidential advisors, skilled at manipulatingrnthe internal politics of the WhiternI louse to their own advantage or at guaranteeingrnthe President “deniability,”rnoften distort or withhold crucial information.rnThe real wonder is not thatrnPresidents appear perplexed, but thatrnthey execute any of the functions ofrntheir office.rnFinally, campaigns for the presidencyrnhave become more expensive, more demanding,rnmore embittered, and morernhumiliating. Indeed, McDonald’s penetratingrninquiry suggests essential questionsrnabout the nature and future ofrndemocracy in an age when presidentialrncontests have come to be based not onlyrnon popularity but on publicity. Thernquest for popularity in an increasinglyrndemocratic political culture may havernengendered appeals to common fears,rnprejudices, and hatreds. But the adventrnof publicity has virtually drained Americanrnpolitical and civic life of values andrnstandards, reason and restraint, taste andrnjudgment. Civilization and democracyrnno longer seem compatible.rnAs a result. Presidents do not commandrnthe respect that they once enjoyedrnas a matter of course. Withoutrnthat respect, they are finished. “It is notrnenough to govern well,” McDonaldrnwisely argues. “The president must alsornseem presidential.” He must exhibit integrity,rncompassion, and mastery of self,rnrivals, and circumstances. He must inspirernconfidence. If he fails to do so, hernwill almost certainly be ineffective,rnwhatever his qualifications for office. AsrnMcDonald insists, “the image . . . determinesrnthe reality.”rnAs fanciful and shifting images haverncome not only to determine but largelyrnto displace substantive reality, it seemsrnimprobable that the American presidencyrnwill continue to work more goodrnthan harm in the nation and in thernworld. The character of the individualsrnwho now occupy the office and therndaunting requirements of the job willrncontinue to produce ambivalent resultsrncalculated to feed the vague but growingrndiscontent of the American people. Thernpresidency will thus persist in its slowrndecline into impotence and incompetence,rnand then shall the realm of Albion’srnseed come to great confusion.rnAPRIL 1995/31rnrnrn