The extent to which the president's power to persuade is his most significant power [30 marks]

Despite this, this highlights the necessity of being able to persuade, as if you cannot do this effectively, you won't be able to fulfil campaign promises and agenda, consequentially, undermining the president's power as they'll be seen as weak and can influence success in the next election. Trump being unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act or achieve border wall funding due to opinion polls being as low as 40%, highlights the necessity of the president's power to not only persuade Congress but also the public. This is due to congress members having a two-election cycle and so will be less likely to support the president on controversial topics.

Therefore, if the president is unable to persuade the public or Congress of their cause, they will struggle significantly to pass a legislative agenda which has negative implications in an election and how they are viewed by the public.

In the Constitution, the need for bipartisanship is reinforced by checks and balances, meaning especially during a divided government, the president will further need the support of Congress to achieve anything, and they are more likely to achieve this. For example, in the constitution, the Senate has the power of advice and consent, meaning many presidential appointments have to be confirmed by the president and Senate. However, the impact of partisanship is demonstrated by Trump who successfully appointed three justices to the Supreme Court under a republican Senate whereas Obama's appointment, Merrick Garland, was refused to be voted on by the Senate. This highlights the significance of the power to persuade as if Congress is divided and highly partisan, the ability to persuade will be significantly undermined and will lose significance. This therefore leads to the reliance on direct authority such as executive orders which do not need approval from Congress, meaning the power and necessity to persuade is now reduced. For example, Trump used executive orders to limit environmental regulations, bypassing Congress.

However, this argument lacks validity as the use of direct authority highlights a failure to persuade and a lack of support. Congress as a legislative body is granted oversight powers and Congress if the president regularly relies on direct authority as it is a way out of non-support of Congress. This leaves the action vulnerable to future sanctions and may be overturned, therefore the power to persuade remains relevant to ensure actions are not overturned. For example, Congress overruled Obama's veto of legislation that would allow families of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia in 2016.

Therefore, the power to persuade is highly important as direct actions such as executive orders are informal powers, while Congress is granted formal powers of oversight in order to ensure the president is complying with the law, etc. This means that if the president's actions do not have broad support and they fail to persuade Congress, they have less ability to sustain their actions and can further undermine the president.

Yet, during an 'imperial' presidency, approval of Congress is less needed meaning that the president doesn't have to worry about backlash from Congress, allowing them to fully exploit constitutional powers, meaning the powers such as Commander in Chief may be more significant. For example, Bush's anti-terror measures did not need approval from Congress and he didn't need to persuade them. This is because the president is the head of state and has symbolic influence during times of crisis, such as after 9/11, and Congress wants to be seen as getting on the side of the 'war on terror' and in patriotism. Obama did not have to persuade Congress to kill Osama Bin Laden. However, whilst this may be true during an 'imperial' presidency and national events, the president is usually 'checked,' limiting their significance and requiring the need for powers of persuasion. Trump was seen as an 'imperial' president for not getting congressional approval on various issues and then facing criticism from Congress which led Congress to pass the Iran war powers resolution meant the president had to ask Congress for approval for future military aims against Iran. This further reinforces the significance of persuasion as the president now needs to persuade Congress to take action demonstrating that if the president exploits their power even more, this leads to Congress exerting further oversight, consequentially increasing the need for the president to persuade Congress, as congress is elected separately and have their own mandate and the president is reliant on congress for legislation, money, and treaties.

Therefore, whilst during an imperial presidency, the significance of the power to persuade is reduced, usually a president is 'impermeable' meaning the ability to persuade Congress and the public is crucial as well as powers constitutional powers of Congress to exert oversight, this will increase in significance if the president is impeached and limited, consequentially reinforcing the importance of persuasion.

Ultimately, whilst the president also has other powers that allow them to bypass congressional scrutiny, reducing the need for the president to persuade Congress, if the president is relying on these powers, it is because they believe they most likely won't be able to persuade congress which is therefore indicative of their weaker position and may suggest a lack of support or popularity which can have long-term impacts on their influence and ability to be re-elected.

Lastly, because Congress wanted to ensure against tyranny of the majority and didn't want the president gaining too much power, congress is granted extensive ability to check the president to ensure they act without persuading Congress, if this needs congressional approval to exert & the action is unfavourable to be overturned, meaning that ultimately, the power to persuade is highly significant and necessary.