GOVT 2302 The Personal Presidency The Contemporary Executive.

GOVT 2302

The Personal PresidencyThe Contemporary Executive

In this section we discuss the “personal” presidency as well as

some of the recently created executive agencies and

controversies associated with them.

Note: For Spring 2011 the assessment will only cover

questions about the personal presidency.

More than any other governing institution, the presidency is a

personal office.

It is impacted by the personality of the individual who holds the office.

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.

We will look at four topics:

Presidential Rankings Presidential Approval Presidential Character

Presidential Decision-Making

Presidential Rankings

In recent decades, historians and others began ranking presidents,

often evaluating past presidents on their performance in a variety of

criteria.

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.

Rankings Presidents is always controversial and subject to

accusations of bias.

Historians are sometimes accused of preferring activist over passive

presidents.

Ranking recent presidents is often politicized, some degree of

distance is necessary to properly evaluate presidencies.

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.

Objective evaluations of Clinton, Reagan and other recent

presidents are tinged with partisan animosity. Some perspective is necessary in order to properly

evaluate presidents objectively.

Rankings vary as historical context changes and as additional

information about the inner workings of presidencies emerge.

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.

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.

Who are the greats and the failures and why?

The “Great” Presidents:

George WashingtonAbraham Lincoln

Franklin Roosevelt

These results are very consistent, these are almost always the top three, and Lincoln is almost always at the

top of every list.

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.

The Failures

Franklin PierceJames BuchananAndrew JohnsonWarren Harding

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.

Harding’s Administration was simply corrupt.

Note that according to C-Span’s survey, the two worst presidents

flanked the best.

How do you evaluate presidents?

In C-Span’s 2009 survey, ten categories of leadership were

selected.

Public PersuasionCrisis Leadership

Economic ManagementMoral Authority

International RelationsAdministrative Skills

Relations with CongressVision/Setting An Agenda

Pursued Equal Justice For AllPerformance Within Context of Times

Public Persuasion

1 – Franklin Roosevelt 2 – Abraham Lincoln

3 – Ronald Reagan40 – Franklin Pierce

41 - Andrew Johnson 42 – James Buchanan

Crisis Leadership

1 – Abraham Lincoln 2 – Franklin Roosevelt3 – George Washington40 – Andrew Johnson

41 - Franklin Pierce 42 – James Buchanan

Economic Management

1 – George Washington 2 – Abraham Lincoln

3 – Bill Clinton40 – George W. Bush 41 – Herbert Hoover42 – James Buchanan

Moral Authority

1 – George Washington 2 – Abraham Lincoln3 – Franklin Roosevelt40 – Andrew Johnson

41 – Richard Nixon42 – James Buchanan

International Relations

1 – George Washington 2 – Franklin Roosevelt3 – Abraham Lincoln40 – James Buchanan41 – George W. Bush

42 – William Henry Harrison

Administrative Skills

1 – George Washington2 – Abraham Lincoln

3 – Franklin Roosevelt40 – Warren G. Harding41 - Andrew Johnson

42 – William Henry Harrison

Relations with Congress

1 – Franklin Roosevelt 2- Lyndon Johnson

3 – Abraham Lincoln 40 – John Tyler

41 – James Buchanan42 – Andrew Johnson

Vision/Setting An Agenda

1 – Abraham Lincoln 2- Franklin Roosevelt

3 – George Washington 40 – Franklin Pierce

41 – Andrew Johnson 42 – James Buchanan

Pursued Equal Justice For All

1 – Abraham Lincoln 2- Lyndon Johnson3 – Harry Truman

40 – Andrew Johnson41 - Franklin Pierce

42 – James Buchanan

Performance Within Context of Times

1 – Abraham Lincoln2- George Washington3 – Franklin Roosevelt

40 – Franklin Pierce41 – Andrew Johnson42 – James Buchanan

Presidential Approval

Since the development of modern polling, questions have been

regularly asked about respondent’s 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.

Job approval and favorability are different. One relates to

perceptions about how the president is doing his job, the

other whether people like him.

Job Approval ratings can vary depending on specific policies

Foreign PolicyEconomic Policy

Health Care

Approval ratings are important – often – since they are indications

of a president’s strength.

Congress is unlikely to check the power of a popular president. The

courts, recall, have no need to defer to popular presidents.

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.

The Gallup Poll has been asking questions about presidential

performance since the 1930s.

For detailed numbers going back to Truman, including comparisons

across presidents, visit the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center.

Here’s a great interactive graphic from the WSJ. It highlights key

moments in presidencies.

Wikipedia: Presidential Approval.

Over the years three significant factors have been found to drive presidential approval numbers.

1 – The Honeymoon Effect.

A president’s 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.

Most presidents suffer swift drops in approval once their term begins and they begin to make decisions that upset certain constituencies

Lyndon Johnson

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.

Jimmy Carter and the Iranian Hostage Crisis

George H.W. Bush and the Persian Gulf War

George W. Bush and 9/11

Examples:

Iranian Hostage Crisis: CarterPersian Gulf War: George H.W.

Bush9/11: George W. Bush

3 – The Economy

The most consistent impact on presidential poll numbers is the

state of the economy.

Ronald Reagan: The Economy Expanded in the 1980s

Bill Clinton – The Economy expanded in the 1990s

Presidential Character

Presidents, naturally, have distinct personalities and these can impact what they are likely to do once in

office.

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.

He introduces a dimensions related to personality.

Active – Passive

How much energy does the president invest in the job?

Positive – Negative

How does he feel about what he does? Does he have fun in political

life?

From these he builds four personality types and identifies

certain presidents as examples of each.

Here are extended quotes from his work, and descriptions of early

presidents that fit each of the four categories.

Active - Positive

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 goals—growing 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.

Example of an active-positive president

Thomas Jefferson

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.”

Active - Negative

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 aggressive

feelings. 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 the

political system, but it is an energy distorted from within.

Example of an active - negative president

John Adams

John Adams followed, a dour New England Puritan, much given to work and worry, an impatient and irascible man—an 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 nation’s 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.”

Passive - Positive

Passive-positive: This is the receptive, compliant, other-directed character whose life is a search for affection

as 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.

Example of an active - negative president

James Madison

The fourth president was James Madison, “Little Jemmy,” the constitutional philosopher thrown into the

White House at a time of great international turmoil. Madison comes closest to the passive-positive, or

compliant type; he suffered from irresolution, tried to compromise his way out, and gave in too readily to the

“warhawks” urging combat with Britain. The nation drifted into war, and Madison wound up ineptly

commanding his collection of amateur generals in the streets of Washington. General Jackson’s victory atNew Orleans saved the Madison administration’s

historical reputation; but he left the presidency with the United States close to bankruptcy and secession.

Passive-negative

Passive-negative: The factors are consistent—but how are we to account for the man’s political role-taking’? Why is someone who does little in politics and enjoys it less there at all’? The

answer lies in the passive negative’s 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.

Example of a passive - negative president

George Washington

George Washington—clearly the most important President in the pantheon—established the

fundamental legitimacy of an American government at a time when this was a matter in considerable

question. Washington’s 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

Presidential Decision-Making

Research has shown that each president has a unique way of

working with advisors.

Often the success and failures of certain presidencies can be traced

to who they appoint as advisors and what relationships they

develop with them.

1 - Some presidents surround themselves with people with

diverse backgrounds.

2 - Others with people who share their own background.

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.

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 president’s

perspective and lead to group think.

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 (1964–67) 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.

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.

A second point of comparison

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.

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.

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.

Three Models as applied to 20th Century Presidents

CompetitiveCollegial

Hiearchical

Competitive

Franklin Roosevelt

Collegial

John Kennedy

Hierarchical

Dwight EisenhowerRichard Nixon