Presidential politics 151the overwhelming majority of the American people, and attempts must be
made to attain these goals. For the pluralistic jumble of interests that faces
the president will not necessarily and automatically cancel out into some
rational and successful pattern. The implicit assumption that it will do so lies
behind much of the extreme adherence to the philosophy of pluralism, and
represents a considerable danger in assessing the operation of modern politi-
cal systems. It leaves no room for leadership, seeing the role of government
merely as that of an umpire between contending interests.
A full explanation of, and understanding of, the presidency requires more
than simply seeing the office as a neutral machine for registering public
opinion. Presidents can, and must, be leaders, even if that leadership proves
to be a merely negative force. They stand at a fulcrum of the American politi-
cal system, using levers that can, in many circumstances, although not all,
turn the tide of events in one direction or another. There is no escaping this
responsibility, even though in attempting to carry it out a president will often
succumb to sectional pressures or to political expediency.
The third function is closely related to the first two. The president must
try to act as the focal point of loyalty for this diverse American society, at one
and the same time giving to each distinct group the sense that its interests
are being defended against internal attacks and attempting also to give at
least a minimal sense of unity to the whole country, particularly in relation
to the rest of the world. No other single individual can ever lay claim to
represent the whole of the American people. As head of state as well as head
of the administration, the president must be seen abroad, and to some extent
at home as well, as in some sense embodying the power and authority of the
whole of the United States. It is this that in large degree has led the presi-
dency increasingly to take on a charismatic quality, giving to the president
an almost mystical aura, sometimes seeming to be endowed with the awe-
some quality of a monarch, but combined with the real hard-headed power
of a skilled politician. Yet here again, the built-in complexity of the system
produces another paradox. The president speaks for the nation, but must
also speak as a party leader and, necessarily having to pursue controversial
policies, sometimes speaks simply as a leader of a faction. The line between
the national leader giving voice to the aspirations and demands of the whole
people, and the party or factional leader pursuing policies that many fellow
countrymen bitterly oppose, is indeed a difficult one to maintain. It is usually
easier for a president to pursue these potentially conflicting roles when the
administration’s foreign policies remain essentially uncontroversial. When
foreign policy becomes a matter of bitter internal dissension, as in the case
of the Vietnam War, then the president’s task becomes a formidable one
indeed.
The fourth, and perhaps the essential, political function of the president
is to be ‘coordinator-in-chief ’ – indeed, almost the only coordinator – of the
innumerable semi-autonomous parts of the governmental machine, both leg-
islative and executive alike. The extraordinarily fragmented nature of the