I've often heard it said that the single most powerful person in the United States government is the President. Seeing as he is one person in charge of one branch of government when the legislative has no single person in charge (take that Ted Cruz), one could easily agree with the statement. But I have always felt that to be missing the point.
Other than being the head of the military, and the rest of the executive branch, what power does the President really have? While he can sign a bill into law, he cannot by himself make a law. He can veto a bill, but Congress can overturn his veto. He cannot control congress even though the Vice President sits as the deciding vote in the Senate.
The President's greatest power is often said to be the bully pulpit. How many times have we heard "... but the President can use the bully pulpit!" But that power is not exclusive to him. Anyone in government (or with money) can stand in front of a camera and say what they will. The President's bully pulpit is predicated by the thought that he could "bully" the other side into doing his bidding. When is the last time we saw that happen? Doesn't it rely on the other side being inept communicators and the public paying attention? Lately (for the last several decades) it seams the bully pulpit is actually owned by the right wing.
So where exactly is this power of the bully pulpit really vested anyway? In the voice of the speaker or the actions of the listeners?
Yes the President may be the most powerful single person in our government. But that would be a government that is designed to have power spread out over many three branches. So what does it mean to be the most powerful person? Nothing if you don't have an active public.
We've watched as a candidates talk a good game during the election only to be muted by the realities of holding the office. Being President hasn't made anyone more vocal in some time. This is all my way of saying that the forces allayed to get Elizabeth Warren to run for President may be inadvertently working to mute her voice and remove its power. Whether the public would vote in enough numbers to elect her is an open question. I would be happy to vote for her but what we really need is to build up our foundation in the house and the senate. And until we have many more strong liberal voices in those places, I will gladly plug my nose and vote for the likes of Hillary Clinton.
It would be great to have Elizabeth Warren, or someone with her strong voice as the POTUS, I think she would make a great President--but then I also had similar hopes for President Obama. Until we have many with her voice in the rest of our government, I'd be happier see her in the senate as long as she can change the dialog.