I’ve always understood that Members of Congress have the added pressure of devoting a significant portion of each day to fundraising for the next campaign. I’m not sure presidents have that same burden.
Bit of each. There’d certainly be little or no room for a British PM to do all the unveilings, openings, gala performances, investitures, garden parties and so forth that the Queen does. And when they do set up something of a fluffy photo opportunity (albeit for directly political purposes), it can sometimes backfire:
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/416198/slide_416198_5287018_free.jpg
But they do have a lot of room to manoeuvre in terms of what they’re prepared to leave to the Cabinet as individuals and collectively, or what they want to micro-manage themselves - in that respect there’s a lot of variation in style as between, say, Thatcher and Cameron, or Churchill and Attlee, or Blair and Brown, come to that.
But in the days of 24/7 news, it’s news management on behalf of the government and party that can run the risk of taking over. Someone centrally maintains the “grid” of expected developments and government announcements and has to anticipate problems so that they can be massaged away, in terms of impact on the headlines. If the PM doesn’t keep a close eye on all that, as much as on the substance of the issues, then they’ll be in trouble. Classically, especially in the Conservative Party, as soon as people of sufficient importance on the back-benches start saying that of course they back the policy entirely, but they’re just a bit worried about the presentation, you know they think the PM’s days are numbered, and someone is “on manoeuvres” for a possible leadership bid.
Didn’t he fly to Scotland in the middle of his campaign to cut the ribbon on a new Trump Resort? I can’t imagine he’ll stop doing shit like that. The Trump brand needs a Trump to keep things rolling, whether he’s President of the United States or not.
I have heard it said that, no matter what you think of his policies and governance, Reagan would have made a perfect king. 
You’re absolutely correct.
The problem is that right now Barack Obama isn’t just President of the United States; he is also the leader of the Democratic Party. In terms of being President, he could be 80% of his job from the White House and not a minute of it would have to be PR. As the leader of the Democratic Party, he has to do that crap. Same went for Bush 2.0, Clinton, Bush 1.0, Reagan, Carter, and on back.
I mean as it happens I totally agree with you. I am wholly unimpressed with “messaging.” I would prefer politicians just say “Here’s what I’m gonna do, and if you like it, vote for me and I’ll do more of the same” and I’d vote that way. But a lot of people want personal comfort in their choice of leader.
I wonder how much time Presidents spend in meetings with political advisors talking about how to talk about things, how to spin things for the most effective messaging. And I wonder how much of it even really works?
Donald Trump would be a much more interesting candidate if he wasn’t so hateful. If he was an effective businessman with an inclusive worldview, but one who just had no use for spin and the conventions of politics, we’d have a good test case of how important that stuff really is. Or maybe we already have our test case, since he has a chance to win despite being hateful and not particularly competent, or all that interested in poiltical convention. Meanwhile, Hillary Cilnton’s candidacy is about as conventional as it gets and just doesn’t seem to be reaching anyone who wasn’t a Hillary voter years ago. Maybe it really is time to put that stuff to bed and make those hacks who have way too much power over senior politicians get real jobs.
Beheaded on national teevee! THINK of the ratings!
But adaher’s party attacked Obama for not flying in to Louisiana after the floods, even though he had been in contact with the local government, and they said it would be best if he delayed his trip there for a few days, so they could concentrate on rescuing people.
Most of the Republican attacks were a bit more discrete than one I heard about that: "Well, he’s a n**r [black man], they always show up late for work".
The parallels with George III are uncanny!
Not to speak for the OP, but I almost created a similar thread. The short version of my question is that suppose I became President and said to hell with these 15 hour days. I am delegating responsibility, and putting in an 8 to 5. No school visits, and if a disaster hits, I’ll issue a release showing sympathy and outlining my plans, but I’m not going down there.
Of course, if North Korea invades South Korea, I will be pulling several all-nighters in that type of an emergency. But if it is a normal day, once that clock strikes five, I am gone, boys. See you in the morning.
Would the country noticeably suffer because of my relaxed work schedule?
That depends on what you’re doing. If you’re being a good CEO and making sure all the individual departments are meeting their goals and determining why they aren’t, or what they are doing that other departments can benefit from, then that’s time well managed. If you’re just doing the same old crap while hoping the people under you are doing a good job without any supervision…
That’s what a lot of people miss about delegation. It doesn’t mean “delegate and forget”, it means “delegate and follow up”. Just because you’re given someone a task doesn’t mean it’s being done the way you want it, or at all. And that’s what a lot of high level people in government either don’t understand, or pretend not to in order to avoid accountability. Meanwhile, the CEO of Wells Fargo is being urged to step down by self-righteous Congressmen who would never think to hold even a Cabinet official to such accountability.
I think you are talking about two different issues. One is not doing 15 hour days routinely. Will the country suffer? No more and no less than it would if you did twelve hours, or eight. It depends on how effective you are otherwise. Work expands to fill the time allotted. And your staff will always say there’s another briefing paper you need to read, or another meeting with the Congressmen from your party about the budget, or another delegation of the Ginseng Growers of America you need to meet with, or something.
The other issue is visiting disaster areas, and other kinds of PR. I don’t know if the country would suffer if you didn’t do that, but your Presidency would. It doesn’t really do any good to visit an area after twenty people died in a flood and hundreds were left homeless, but you have to do it anyway. Because people like to be reassured as well as assisted. And perception is reality in politics.
You may be better served by spending your eight hour day on appearances, at least to some degree, than anything else.
As far as delegating?
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, the problem with what Truman says is that the wise old politicians know that’s how it’s supposed to work. Although if a President actually wants to run the executive branch he can. It’s just that if he does, he’s also accountable for it. If the plane is on autopilot and crashes, the pilot can always say, “Hey, I didn’t know it was going down instead of up!”
If you think the Presidency is all about ‘power’ - then sure, you could do as little as possible while you ‘rule’ your subjects.
If you think the Presidency is all about ‘serving your country/peoples interests’ - then its going to take a significant part of your day both staying informed and working out solutions and communication back out to those you serve. And you’ll still get derided when you take a golf weekend.
Grant and Harding were great at delegating and their presidencies were disasters. Truman had delegation problems too; most of the great things we remember from his presidency were the things he handled personally (or had Marshall handle) - the stuff he let other people take care of usually went badly. Coolidge got lucky and was able to leave office right before the country collapsed so his reputation survived. And the objective facts of Reagan’s presidency differ substantially from the popular image of it.
My overall point is that hands-off presidencies don’t work. It appears that high-level officials need somebody watching over their shoulder to make sure they’re doing their job in an honest and effective manner. A President who lets his people do what they want without keeping an eye on things is asking for trouble.