Presidential politics 159meetings with the president of those members concerned with a particular
problem.
Presidents have used the cabinet as an organ of consultation and advice,
but it has never enjoyed the role of a collective decision-taking body like that
of the British cabinet. There are a number of reasons for this, quite apart
from the silence of the Constitution on the subject. The whole atmosphere
of the American political scene is opposed to the idea of the collective re-
sponsibility of a tightly knit, cohesive cabinet along the lines that used to
be the ideal of cabinet government in Britain. The cohesiveness of British
cabinets rested upon two interrelated characteristics of the British system:
parliamentary government and the party structure. The former makes it
imperative for the cabinet to maintain a unified front in order to safeguard
its majority in the House of Commons, without which it must resign. The lat-
ter, based upon closely disciplined, ideologically oriented party organisations,
produces a relatively like-minded body of men and women at the head of a
political party, whose approach to the problems of government will be quite
similar. Although the foundations of this party system may be crumbling in
Britain today, and the concept of collective responsibility has lost much of
its earlier significance, the members of a British cabinet still tend to be very
close to each other in their political ideas and ideals, compared with the
attitudes of the opposing party. Furthermore, they will be a group of men
and women most of whom have shared the same long apprenticeship in the
House of Commons, working their way up from the back benches, through
junior and then more senior ministerial positions, until they reach the cabi-
net. They will also have shared the years of political wilderness in opposition.
This forges a bond that is not lightly broken. None of these considerations
applies to the American cabinet.
First, the American cabinet is not formally responsible to Congress. In a
constitutional sense its responsibility is to the president alone, but in terms
of practical politics the heads of the great departments must pay almost as
much attention to what Congress wants as to the president. It is congres-
sional legislation that empowers them to act, it is money granted by Con-
gress that finances their activities, and it is the committees of Congress that
keep a vigilant watch on their performance. Thus cabinet members look to
the president who hired them, and could fire them, and to the Congress,
particularly to the chairmen of those committees with whom they must deal,
but they do not look much to their cabinet colleagues, except perhaps as
potential rivals for presidential favours and congressional funds.
Second, the relationships between the president and the members of his
cabinet may be very close, and yet they are of a different quality from those
of a prime minister and his or her colleagues. The president may appoint to
the highest offices in the administration individuals who were personally un-
known until a few days before their appointment. The president may, rarely
it is true, appoint members of the opposing party to important positions in
the administration. Although regard must be shown for the representative