The Presidency

1
The Presidency

• GOVT 2305

2
The previous sections have focused mostly on the
institution of the presidency. This section deals
more with the personalities of the people that
occupy the office.Since the executive branch
has an autocratic design meaning it is headed
by a single person the activities of the
presidency are determined in many ways by the
personalities of the people who have held the
office.
3
Presidential success or failure often is
determined by the disposition of the individual.
In this final section on the executive we will
first look into the nature of the personal
presidency before digging into contemporary
issues in the executive branch.
4
More than any other governing institution, the
presidency is a personal office. The
legislative and judicial branches are composed of
multiple individuals that work together in an
institutional context and are limited to some
degree by the others that are in that
institution.
5
One could rebut this by pointing out that
presidents have advisors and work within the
broader context of the checks and balances.But
the advisors are appointed by the president, so
they adhere to some degree to the presidents
agenda.
6
Thats part of the purpose of the design of the
institution.As mentioned previously, Alexander
Hamilton argued that the singular design of the
presidency would allow for the individual who
held the office to respond to emergencies that
required vigorous response.
7
Hamilton was responsible for the Federalist
Papers that explained and justified the design of
the executive branch, and the presidency in
particular. In Federalist 70 he justified the
singular (unity in the executive) executive like
this
8
That unity is conducive to energy, will not be
disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and
despatch, will generally characterize the
proceedings of one man, in a much more eminent
degree than the proceedings of any greater
number and in proportion as the number is
increased, these qualities will be diminished.
9
One person can make decisions more quickly than
can a group of people. This allows for a quicker
response to emergencies.But it can also lead to
abuse.
10
This creates the possibility that certain
personalities that might be more inclined to
abuse the power of the executive obtain that
power.The idea of the imperial presidency rests
on that notion. Ultimately the checks and
balances serves to limit them.
11
Students of the presidency have wondered whether
certain personality traits indicate a tendency of
people to abuse power once in office.
12
One popular subject of study is Richard Nixon
though others are often studied as well,
including Lyndon Johnson.
13
For a more recent appraisal of President Obama
click here Is Barack Obama an imperial
president?
14
FactCheck.org also has background on this
Obama and Executive Overreach
15
This brief intro is simply intended to
demonstrate that the personality of the president
matters.Now for the meat of the section
16
We will look at four topicsPresidential
Rankings Presidential Approval Presidential
CharacterPresidential Decision-Making
17
Presidential Rankings
18
In recent decades, historians and others began
ranking presidents, often evaluating past
presidents on their performance in a variety of
criteria.
19
Some links - Wikipedia Historical ratings of
Presidents.- C-Span 2009 Survey of Presidential
Leadership.- LATimes comment on C-Span survey.-
HNN Analysis of C-Span Survey.
20
These rankings are obviously intended to
determine which presidents did a good job in
office, which did not and which were so-so.
21
Rankings Presidents is always controversial and
subject to accusations of bias. The evaluation of
presidents carries with it an assumption of what
sorts of things presidents should do.Historians
are sometimes accused of preferring activist over
passive presidents.
22
Ranking recent presidents is often politicized,
partisanship enters into the evaluations.
Partisans tend to like presidents of their own
party more than those of the other party. Some
degree of distance is necessary to properly
evaluate presidencies, but people do it anyway.
23
Example in a 2005 Wall Street Journal Survey,
self identified Democrats ranked George W. Bush
the 6th worst president while Republicans ranked
him the 6th best.
24
Approval ratings of President Obama are similarly
divisive.
25
Click here for a November 2013 Gallup Poll story
on partisan differences in assessing recent
presidents.The most divisive ratings have been
on the most recent presidents.
26
(No Transcript)
27
Objective evaluations of Clinton, Reagan, Obama
and other recent presidents are tinged with
partisan animosity. Some perspective is necessary
in order to properly evaluate presidents
objectively.
28
Also A presidents rankings can change over
time.Rankings vary as historical context
changes and as additional information about the
inner workings of presidencies emerge.
29
Example Eisenhower was originally rated low by
historians who thought he was out of touch as
president. Once open records showed this was
not the case, his assessment was increased.
30
Heres one authors skeptical look at the high
ratings John Kennedy regularly gets from the
general population.
31
Past presidents have been divided into the
Greats, Near Greats, Average, Below Average and
Failures.This color graphic shows the
presidents chronologically. It suggests a pattern
in rankings.
32
(No Transcript)
33
Who are the greats and the failures and why?
34
The Great PresidentsGeorge
WashingtonAbraham LincolnFranklin
RooseveltThese results are very consistent,
these are almost always the top three, and
Lincoln is almost always at the top of every
list.
35
Each is argued to have successfully faced a major
crisis and faced it in a manner that united the
nation. The Founding, The Civil War, The Great
Depression and World War II.
36
The Failures
37
Franklin PierceJames BuchananAndrew
JohnsonWarren Harding
38
The first two served before the Civil War and did
not nothing to address the division leading to
war. Johnson is argued to have bungled
reconstruction with divisive politics and ensured
a slow healing of the wounds of the war.
39
Hardings Administration was simply corrupt.
40
Note that according to C-Spans survey, the two
worst presidents flanked the best.
41
How do you evaluate presidents?In C-Spans 2009
survey, ten categories of leadership were
selected.
42
Public PersuasionCrisis LeadershipEconomic
ManagementMoral AuthorityInternational
RelationsAdministrative SkillsRelations with
CongressVision/Setting An AgendaPursued Equal
Justice For AllPerformance Within Context of
Times
43
The previous slide is worth pondering.It
provides one studys assessment of what criteria
a president should be evaluated by.
44
Heres a run through which presidents ranked high
and low according to these criteria.
45
Public Persuasion1 Franklin Roosevelt 2
Abraham Lincoln3 Ronald Reagan40 Franklin
Pierce 41 - Andrew Johnson 42 James Buchanan
46
Crisis Leadership1 Abraham Lincoln 2
Franklin Roosevelt3 George Washington40
Andrew Johnson 41 - Franklin Pierce 42 James
Buchanan
47
Economic Management1 George Washington 2
Abraham Lincoln3 Bill Clinton40 George W.
Bush 41 Herbert Hoover42 James Buchanan
48
Moral Authority1 George Washington 2
Abraham Lincoln3 Franklin Roosevelt40
Andrew Johnson41 Richard Nixon42 James
Buchanan
49
International Relations1 George Washington 2
Franklin Roosevelt3 Abraham Lincoln40
James Buchanan41 George W. Bush42 William
Henry Harrison
50
Administrative Skills1 George Washington2
Abraham Lincoln3 Franklin Roosevelt40
Warren G. Harding41 - Andrew Johnson 42
William Henry Harrison
51
Relations with Congress1 Franklin Roosevelt
2- Lyndon Johnson3 Abraham Lincoln 40 John
Tyler41 James Buchanan42 Andrew Johnson
52
Vision/Setting An Agenda1 Abraham Lincoln 2-
Franklin Roosevelt 3 George Washington 40
Franklin Pierce41 Andrew Johnson 42 James
Buchanan
53
Pursued Equal Justice For All 1 Abraham
Lincoln 2- Lyndon Johnson3 Harry Truman40
Andrew Johnson41 - Franklin Pierce 42 James
Buchanan
54
Performance Within Context of Times 1 Abraham
Lincoln2- George Washington3 Franklin
Roosevelt40 Franklin Pierce41 Andrew
Johnson42 James Buchanan
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
Presidential Approval
58
Since the development of modern polling,
questions have been regularly asked about
respondents attitudes about presidents. These
question ask about attitudes about whether they
like the person, or if they approve of the job
they are doing. These are not the same.
59
Job approval and favorability are different. One
relates to perceptions about how the president is
doing his job, the other whether people like him.
60
Job Approval ratings can vary depending on
specific policiesForeign PolicyEconomic
PolicyHealth Care
61
Approval ratings are important often since
they are indications of a presidents strength.
Congress is unlikely to check the power of a
popular president. The courts, recall, have no
need to defer to popular presidents.
62
Presidents with high job approval ratings can go
public. They can take a proposal directly to the
public and use them as leverage against Congress.
63
The Gallup Poll has been asking questions about
presidential performance since the 1930s.
64
For detailed numbers going back to Truman,
including comparisons across presidents, visit
the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center.
65
Heres a great interactive graphic from the WSJ.
It highlights key moments in presidencies.Wikipe
dia Presidential Approval.
66
Over the years three significant factors have
been found to drive presidential approval numbers.
67
1 The Honeymoon Effect. A presidents polls
numbers tend to start high. The euphoria of the
campaign is still present, there are high
expectations, and the president has yet to do
anything nothing has had the time to go wrong.
68
Most presidents suffer swift drops in approval
once their term begins and they begin to make
decisions that upset certain constituencies
69
Lyndon Johnson
70
2 The Rally Around the Flag Effect.Whenever
there is an international incident, or an attack
on the U.S. poll numbers go up. This is argued to
be due to the tendency of people to rally with
people they normally disagree with in order to
counter the threat.
71
Jimmy Carter and the Iranian Hostage Crisis
72
George H.W. Bush and the Persian Gulf War
73
George W. Bush and 9/11
74
Examples Iranian Hostage Crisis
CarterPersian Gulf War George H.W. Bush9/11
George W. Bush
75
3 The EconomyThe most consistent impact on
presidential poll numbers is the state of the
economy.
76
Ronald Reagan The Economy Expanded in the 1980s
77
Bill Clinton The Economy expanded in the 1990s
78
(No Transcript)
79
Presidential Character
80
Presidents, naturally, have distinct
personalities and these can impact what they are
likely to do once in office.
81
The study of presidential character can be traced
to the work of James David Barber. In The
Presidential Character he outlines four distinct
personalities of presidents and uses it to
predict performance.
82
He introduces a dimensions related to personality.
83
Active PassiveHow much energy does the
president invest in the job?
84
Positive NegativeHow does he feel about what
he does? Does he have fun in political life?
85
From these he builds four personality types and
identifies certain presidents as examples of each.
86
Here are extended quotes from his work, and
descriptions of early presidents that fit each of
the four categories.
87
The Active Positive President
88
Active-positive There is a congruence, a
consistency, between much activity and the
enjoyment of it, indicating relatively high
self-esteem and relative success in relating to
the environment. The man shows an orientation
toward productiveness as a value and an ability
to use his styles flexibly adaptively, suiting
thedance to the music. He sees himself as
developing over time toward relatively well
defined personal goalsgrowing toward his image
of himself as he might yet be. There is an
emphasis on rational mastery, on using the brain
to move the feet. This may get him into trouble
he may fail to take account of the irrational in
politics. Not everyone he deals with sees things
his way and he may find it hard to understand why.
89
Example of an active-positive presidentThomas
Jefferson
90
Thomas Jefferson. He too had his troubles and
failures in the design of national defense, for
example. As for his presidential character (only
one element in success or failure), Jefferson was
clearly active-positive. A child of the
Enlightenment, he applied his reason to
organizing connections with Congress aimed at
strengthening the more popular forces. A man of
catholic interests and delightful humor,
Jefferson combined a clear and open vision of
what the country could be with a profound
political sense, expressed in his famous phrase,
Every difference of opinion is not a difference
of principle.
91
The Active Negative President
92
Active-negative The contradiction here is
between relatively intense effort and relatively
low emotionalreward for that effort. The
activity has a compulsive quality, as if the man
were trying to make up forsomething or to escape
from anxiety into hard work. He seems ambitious,
striving upward, power-seeking.His stance toward
the environment is aggressive and he has a
persistent problem in managing his
aggressivefeelings. His self-image is vague and
discontinuous. Life is a hard struggle to achieve
and hold power,hampered by the condemnations of
a perfectionistic conscience. Active-negative
types pour energy into thepolitical system, but
it is an energy distorted from within.
93
Example of an active - negative presidentJohn
Adams
94
John Adams followed, a dour New England Puritan,
much given to work and worry, an impatient and
irascible manan active-negative President, a
compulsive type. Adams was far more partisan than
Washington the survival of the system through
his presidency demonstrated that the nation could
tolerate, for a time, domination by one of its
nascent political parties. As President, an angry
Adams brought the United States to the brink of
war with France, and presided over the new
nations first experiment in political
repression the Alien and Sedition Acts,
forbidding, among other things, unlawful
combinations with intent to oppose any measure
or measures of the government of the United
States, or any false, scandalous, and malicious
writing or writings against the United States, or
the President of the United States, with intent
to defame . . . or to bring them or either of
them, into contempt or disrepute.
95
The Passive Positive President
96
Passive-positive This is the receptive,
compliant, other-directed character whose life is
a search for affectionas a reward for being
agreeable and cooperative rather than personally
assertive. The contradiction isbetween low
self-esteem (on grounds of being unlovable,
unattractive) and a superficial optimism. A
hopeful attitude helps dispel doubt and elicits
encouragement from others. Passive-positive types
help soften the harsh edges of politics. But
their dependence and the fragility of their hopes
and enjoyments make disappointment in politics
likely.
97
Example of an passive - positive presidentJames
Madison
98
The fourth president was James Madison, Little
Jemmy, the constitutional philosopher thrown
into theWhite House at a time of great
international turmoil. Madison comes closest to
the passive-positive, orcompliant type he
suffered from irresolution, tried to compromise
his way out, and gave in too readily to
thewarhawks urging combat with Britain. The
nation drifted into war, and Madison wound up
ineptlycommanding his collection of amateur
generals in the streets of Washington. General
Jacksons victory atNew Orleans saved the
Madison administrations historical reputation
but he left the presidency with the United States
close to bankruptcy and secession.
99
The Passive Negative President
100
Passive-negative The factors are consistentbut
how are we to account for the mans political
role-taking? Why is someone who does little in
politics and enjoys it less there at all? The
answer lies in the passive negatives
character-rooted orientation toward doing dutiful
service this compensates for low self-esteem
based on a sense of uselessness. Passive-negative
types are in politics because they think they
ought to be. They may be well adapted to certain
nonpolitical roles, but they lack the experience
and flexibility to perform effectively as
political leaders. Their tendency is to withdraw,
to escape from the conflict and uncertainty of
politics by emphasizing vague principles
(especially prohibitions) and procedural
arrangements. They become guardians of the right
and proper way, above the sordid politicking of
lesser men.
101
Example of a passive - negative presidentGeorge
Washington
102
George Washingtonclearly the most important
President in the pantheonestablished the
fundamental legitimacy of an American government
at a time when this was a matter in considerable
question. Washingtons dignity, judiciousness,
his aloof air of reserve and dedication to duty
fit the passive-negative or withdrawing type
best. Washington did not seek innovation, he
sought stability. He longed to retire to Mount
Vernon, but fortunately was persuaded to stay on
through a second term, in which, by rising above
the political conflict between Hamilton and
Jefferson and inspiring confidence in his own
integrity, he gave the nation time to develop the
organized means for peaceful change
103
(No Transcript)
104
Presidential Decision-Making
105
Research has shown that each president has a
unique way of working with advisors.
106
Often the success and failures of certain
presidencies can be traced to who they appoint as
advisors and what relationships they develop with
them.
107
1 - Some presidents surround themselves with
people with diverse backgrounds.2 - Others with
people who share their own background.
108
The advantage of the first model is that
presidents are exposed to differing points of
view, but it can lead to confusion and a lack of
clarity. Presidents may not be comfortable with
that many contrary opinions.
109
The advantage of the second is that presidents
can work among individuals they are comfortable.
But the lack of diverse points of view may
limit a presidents perspective and lead to group
think.
110
Group Think A type of thought within a deeply
cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize
conflict and reach consensus without critically
testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Irving
Janis studied a number of 'disasters' in American
foreign policy, such as failure to anticipate the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) the Bay
of Pigs fiasco (1961) when the US administration
sought to overthrow Fidel Castro and the
prosecution of the Vietnam War (196467) by
President Lyndon Johnson. He concluded that in
each of these cases, the decisions were made
largely due to the cohesive nature of the
committees which made them. Wikipedia.
111
The decisions made by the W Bush Administration
regarding Iraq were argued to be affected by
group think. No one was in a position, or
inclined, to argue against the decision to invade.
112
A second point of comparison
113
Some presidents have direct connections to a
variety of top advisors.Some prefer a rigid
decision making structure that places barriers
between him and most others, save one or two
trusted individuals.
114
The former is sometimes referred to as the
spokes in the wheel model since the president
lies in the center of a variety of advisers who
have equal access to him.
115
The latter is referred to as a hierarchical model
since the president is on top of a rigid military
like hierarchy. Only a small number of people
have access to him.
116
Three Models as applied to 20th Century Presidents
117
CompetitiveCollegialHiearchical
118
Competitive Franklin Roosevelt
119
CollegialJohn Kennedy
120
HierarchicalDwight EisenhowerRichard Nixon
121
(No Transcript)
122
(No Transcript)
123
(No Transcript)