IN THE CABINET ROOM of RICHARD NIXON'S WHITE HOUSE THERE hang two portraits, one of Woodrow Wilson and one of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Report has it that they are the personal selection of the present incumbent, representing those of his predecessors whom he most admires. If so, they constitute an interesting choice, an unusual combination. Woodrow Wilson, in the type-casting of history, is a typical ‘strong’ President, the innovative leader who rules as well as reigns, the convinced mandatory of the popular will. Eisenhower, by contrast, represents a unique attempt in our time to recreate the ‘weak’ or ‘strict constructionist’ President of an earlier age, a quasi-monarchical head of state who does not seek to rule and does not claim for himself a larger or more authoritative mandate than that of his legislative colleagues. Moreover Wilson, despite his repudiation by the American people, saw himself as an active leader of his party, while Eisenhower, despite his landslide victories, thought it improper (or found it distasteful) to use the presidency as an instrument of party advantage.

At this moment in our history, most Americans have concluded that government is not performing well. It promises much, but it does not deliver what it promises. The great danger, in my judgement, is that this momentary disillusionment with government will turn into a more profound and lasting loss of faith.

ANY ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE AND VIABILITY OF THE contemporary Congress presents formidable problems. This is because criticism of Congress has been an almost constant feature of American political discussion, long before current political tensions produced wider comment on the institutional structure as a whole, and also because such an assessment must consider not only the existing capacity and will in Congress to respond to contemporary demands but also the nature of the relationship of Congress to other branches of government, and in particular to the executive. One further difficulty is that there has been, and remains, wide disagreement among observers as to the virtues and defects of Congress.

THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM, LONG CONSIDERED TO BE DOMINATED by two decentralized, non-programmatic and non-governing parties, is once again at the heart of empirical and normative arguments about the adequacy of government in the United States. Political developments since 1948 have revitalized the longstanding debate about the causal links between the constitutional and social bases of American politics, the definitive features of the party system and the attributes and outcomes of the governmental process.

ALL POLITIES ARE PRESSURE COOKERS. THEY DIFFER IN ALL SORTS OF ways – and many of the differences between them reflect the differences in the pressures they contain, in the way the ‘cooker’ has been designed or has found a durable shape, and in how they respond to the changing force and direction of the pressures. It is no longer fashionable to look with disdain at the special historical importance of such pressures within the American polity: we know all too well that comparable processes exist elsewhere. It remains true, however, that, within a changing context of society and culture, interest groups both public and private, are peculiarly alive and well within the American system.