masses have grown faster than the capacity of presidential government to meet them."17
These views set an agenda for political scholars--one that encourages analysis of the special challenge facing a president separated from, yet expected to lead, the rest of the political system. Within the broader development that Moe speaks of and that Sundquist and others worry about, the variation in approaches is a worthy subject of study. It begins, however, with the recognition of the changes that have occurred and directs attention to the variability in conditions for each new occupant of the office.
Wildavsky sees all of this as "an antileadership system" in which "presidents are tempted into action only to discover that whatever they do is not what they were somehow supposed to have done." 18 What that suggests is that presidents must be ever attentive to the constraints as well as the perquisites of power. Defining who you are and where you are is a starting point in the presentation of self. Doing so is an especially sensitive endeavor for the separated president, since there is an unusually small margin of error. Presumably, presidential attentiveness to position as a source of power would satisfy Madison as one of the "auxiliary precautions" that experience teaches are necessary if government is to control itself.