Who does the President Represent?

During the year-plus campaigning phase, presidential candidates try to make connections with the American people.  They do this by trying to keep their ideas as non-polarizing as possible (center on the political spectrum) and pandering to swing states and key demographic groups.  Once elected though, does the president really care about these people anymore?  Clearly nobody will do a complete 180 and admit to having lied their way through the campaign, but to what degree do they return to their base and their ideological ideas?  This is the reality, but in an ideal representative democracy who would the president support?  The answer clearly is the people, but it is much more sophisticated than that.  Clearly a far right wing conservative will not suddenly see it as his obligation to consider much less act on the views of a left wing liberal.  But, then the question becomes whether they should take into account the views of the independant citizens.  If they are up for election, they are probably more likely to pander to these people.  Otherwise the only time they need to consider views different than theirs is if they need to negotiate with a congress majority of a different party than them.  This is probably not ideal, but unless you hold elections every year, there is really know way around it.
    Throughout history we have seen different presidents have various styles of representing Americans.  Some have seen it as their right to obey the wishes of the American people and allow their agendas to be influenced by the people's opinion.  Others reject this theory and set their own agenda.  Then, some switch back and forth depending on whether the issue is of particular relevance to Americans.  I see merits in all of these positions.  The first would have the president being a trustee and it makes sense from the standpoint of the people elected them to make the decisions in the first place so they have full reign.  While possibly butting heads with the American value of equality, the president is hopefully a wiser person than the average American and should be able to make a sounder decision than Joe Schmo who has limited information and in some cases wrong information.  This is especially true in regards to national security where the public does not and should not have very much information.  The positive to a trustee is that the public opinion is constantly evolving and the public views that got you elected as far back at almost four years ago might have changed.  At the very least, you would hope the president is as dynamic as the general public and can adapt his views when in office.
      Such a president who adapts their views and does so in correspondence with the American people would be a delegate president.  One reason a president would want to be a delegate is they would probably be setting themselves up best for a reelection run.  But, then the question becomes if the views of the people are those that will make America most successful.  My answer to this would be most of the time Americans are wrong.  There are definitely times when the American people have a overall view that would be unsuccessful yet is popular because it seems right.  But, this is where the president must use his intelligence to make the best decision.  If it works out the president is applauded for for being a strong leader, and if it fails it is up to the president to plead his case to the American people as to why he chose the rout he did.
   The third route a president can take is that of a politico.  This is when a president cares about representing American views when they are hot button issues and otherwise reserves the right to make his own decision.  This makes sense from the standpoint of reelection as you can't go against too many popular opinions and be elected.  There are, however, popular topics in which the president should probably reserve the right to make up his own mind.  This is generally a hybrid of the two previous presidential types and therefore I don't see it as a horrible route to go.
      Other factors to consider in regards to who the president represents begin and end with who elects him.  Until many demographic groups start voting it is reasonable to assume that most presidents will somewhat disregard their needs.  This gives a larger amount of power to those groups that do vote.  This could change if a situation came about for descriptive representation.  In this situation the group this presidential candidate would represent would most likely come out to vote.  But, I am not in favor of making the presidency into a tool for social change.  The person best suited to lead this country should be elected president. End of story.  It is bad if 50 years from now the only thing we remember about Barack Obama is that he was the first black president.

The Powers of The President

When William Taft criticized Teddy Roosevelt for interpreting his presidential powers as being too far reaching, they were having the same kind of argument that our founding fathers had over  a century before them and we are still having a century after them.  Taft argues that Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party was using government intervention in too many foreign and domestic ways.  Taft, on the other hand interpreted his powers to be much smaller and welcomed the checks on his power that congress brought.  The contrast in the back to back presidents is a great example and starting point to debate the powers of the presidency.

 Lets start by exploring the Taft type of president.  The first and biggest point about this kind of president is that it would help to have a majority in the house and senate.  Otherwise, you would have little success getting your agenda across and few other avenues to turn to.  Of course, the argument here is that the president should be going through congress because they are of equal power and just as congress can make bills, the president can veto them.  This more law abiding president would have fewer foreign relation issues as it is less likely that any act that would be considered imperialistic would get passed if it went through congress.  Prime examples of such acts would be the Iran-Contra Scandal and the overthrowing of the Shah.  It is these secret agendas that are clearly illegal acts by the president.  

   On the Roosevelt side, an act like the Panama Canal could be seen as a time when the president acts in an imperialistic way, yet does more good than harm.  It is these kinds of act that lend credence to asserting all your possible powers when president.  It could be argued that with the understanding that the president can take advantage of far reaching powers within reason, it is up to the American people to vote for someone who will use those powers wisely.  This is not to condone those who abuse the powers for personal betterment, but to suggest that perhaps the founders gave this lack of clarity because there are certain times that the president must act swiftly to serve the needs of the people.  Such times would be in response to an attack from another country or maybe if a situation like Egypt escalated and the group about to assume power turns out to be a terrorist organization.  In these situations, even if congress was on recess, you would need a strong figure to assume responsibility.  

  Overall, I fall on the side of Roosevelt because the framers didn't leave the powers open ended because they couldn't decide what powers the president could have.  They wanted the president to mostly have checks and balances, but be able to assert themselves at certain times that the situation called for it.  I do understand the dangers, but something like Bush wiretapping is an action that has protected out country during a time of immense danger while doing very little harm.  Yes, that and the whole deal with the NSA was an impeachable act by him, but by the time such an act got through congress, who knows what kind of preventable act could have happened on our soil.  I understand the corruption of many politicians, but I feel we have no choice but to risk giving the president the ability to protect us in most every possible way.  Even now, it is understood the president has the sole power to shoot off our nuclear weapons at other countries.  If we give the president this power, we must trust him with others.  It is up to the voters to choose people they feel will not harm these privileges.  It is true that congress has the American peoples best interest in mind.  But there are plenty of situations regarding national security where a swift decision means acting as quickly as possible.  And yes, I do draw the line somewhere.  But, I feel this line will be drawn by the American people.  If the president does something possibly impeachable and egregious to Americans, there will be insurmountable pressure  on mostly congress but also the justice department to press charges.  I think historically Americans have taken exception to few presidents and thus you can count the impeachments on one hand.  Yet, this could be a larger number if secrets got out about presidents actions during office.  This I do not condone, but there is not much we can do about this.  But a transparent agenda that aims to serve the American people should be welcomed if it passes muster of the majority American people.  It is for the best of the people that we give the president these powers.