No matter who is in office, the presidential position has time and time again found a way to expand the constitutional limits through the opportunity of executive orders and position over the policies of bureaucracies. In their view, its deemed necessary to assume more power, despite appearing to the public as an act of self- interest to complete personal goals. Just as Congress can hardly limit the aims of the president, similar deprivation exists for the people. The influence of unilateral action allows the president to intervene in policies through executive orders. The issue of these orders allows absolute discretion and direct action that can take or stop action, alter policies, or change management that can affect many. In Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, Howell warns, And if they prefer to keep their decisions entirely secret, they can issue national security directives, which neither Congress, not the public has an opportunity to review (Howell, 252). Choosing to avoid the opinions of the people overrides any sort of social or legislative restraint and can be repackaged into their ideas in forms of memoranda, proclamations, etc. In our current presidency, the abuse of presidential power has been highly criticized against state governments, specifically in local assemblies of the people. As discussed in In Clash Between California and Trump, Arango observes major division between the presidents ideas for the good of the nation and those proposed by the state of California (Arango). As he aims to push for more conservative policies, California seeks for liberal implementations for its people such as its attempt to become a sanctuary state, raising the minimum wage, passing gun control laws, etc. However, Trump would beat these efforts by implementing special agents in ICE without state approval. These differing ideas lead many to believe that the president is using his power excessively to implement his policies through executive orders, policy changes, etc., in state and legislative productivity. This is a prime example of the power of the president surpassing a local, state politicians fostering the voices of the people. Similarly, the presidents actions in the bureaucratic sector aid at the growth of the executive branch. The command of the president has begun to fail the people as he replaces the experiences bureaucrats who protect against impulsive changes with political figures chosen by the president. The ever-widening gap between what the president versus what the people want appears to direct downhill, as it is recognized: The agencies within the U.S. government with the greatest percentage of presidential appointments tend to perform more poorly than agencies with a higher ratio of career civil servants (KJKV 342). This sidelining of the original order of the bureaucracy reflected in todays political intervention through his bureaucratic lead in labor relations. President Trump has expanded the power to dominate policy-making decisions regarding bureaucracies more control than any other political actor. He signed a notable executive order minimizing the bureaucracy and suggesting the cut of many of its programs and employees. A federal employee of the AFGE uni
on expressed: President Trump is attempting to silence the voice of veterans, law enforcement officers
intended to strip federal employees of their decades-old right to representation at the worksite (Rein, 208). Implementing executive orders on the presidents own accord reduces the power of the people as they lose the ability to limit the presidents actions without an opportunity to negotiate.
The inevitable Duvengers law and its two-party system have arisen a degrading competition between the people, resulting in gridlock and minimizes the power to check the president. Decentralization becomes less of a chance due to internal fragments seeming only more difficult to resolve while coalition deems almost impossible with the heavy attachment to party identification. In The Great Alignment, Abramowitz describes the increased consistency in voters preferences and intense party loyalty by voters in his chapter, New American Electorate. As this is a strong predictor of election voting, many have divided into mainly liberal or conservative standpoints. With this constant divide, altercations and clashes lead to no compromise favorable to all. Abramowitz observes that many issues such as abortion or gay rights divide people when mentioning,
Very closely correlated-sharp differences between the two major parties on both types of issues-opinions on these issues increasingly likely to reinforce one another
(Abramowitz). No one is willing to stand down and the division only proceeds to further from a conclusion. When the people are so massively divided, legislative voice and productivity diminish. Consequently, the beginning stages of issue and voter polarization lead to the inability to limit the president because while the people evaluate decisions to comply with polarized efforts, the candidates must accept the limited amount of parties offered under the major electoral categories. Divided parties lead to major gridlock in which the people stray from the actions of the president and become less concerned with the actual pressing political problems and rather focus on making sure their party leaders take a position. Parties organize the people into a compact selection of opinions that steer away from the issues the president puts forward and focuses on loyalty instead of prioritizing beliefs. In reality, parties are weak in themselves and have no major influence on the very specific policies a president may place. Abrams and Fiorina further explore this phenomenon in party sorting. They recognize the fact that Americans have grown homogenous in party availabilities interests, values, and individual morals are made to fit in a readily available destiny. They suggest: In consequence, elections matter more. As the stakes rise, civility falls (Abrams and Fiorina, 205, 9). The creation of a two-party system holds little power over candidates and encourages the legitimacy of ignorant oppositions towards others. People have conformed to not voting for the candidate they like or one that represents their views, theyre voting against the candidate you dont like. It becomes an issue due to the fact that parties dont have control over who they can nominate but are still blindly ready to support whoever falls under their party.