[Professor Thompson—Fall 2008]
HST341/PSC329: Take-Home Final Examination.
DIRECTIONS: Answer one question from each of the three sections. This test is open-book; when necessary or
appropriate, you should consult and/or refer to readings, class notes, etc. (While references to titles and/or authors
are required, quotes and precise page numbers are NOT necessary, though they may be used.) Make your answers
as substantive & persuasive as they can be, within the available space; they need not be typed (though we prefer
that), but they must be LEGIBLE and GRAMMATICAL. Your entire exam is to be no more than 2000 words in
length—the equivalent of 8 double-spaced, typed pages with proper (c. 1-inch) margins (this is an absolute outer
limit; it can be shorter), using a standard 10- or 12-point font—we will not read more than this (and your answers will
be evaluated on the basis of what we can reasonably expect within such limits)! Note point values of questions in
allocating your time and space.
This exam is due NO LATER THAN Wednesday, December 10, at 11 a.m. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE
DEADLINE!! [You may, of course, turn it in early.] Please be sure you have followed all of the following
instructions before turning it in:
1. Make sure each answer is labeled with part and question number. 2. Put your name on each page you turn in,
and number the pages. 3. All pages must be firmly STAPLED (no paper clips or other fasteners). 4. Slide your exam
underneath MST’s office door—Room 313C Maxwell. DO NOT leave it in anyone’s mailbox, in the History or
PSC office, or anywhere else. You may not turn your exam in via any other method without prior approval.
PART I (40 points).
1. It is November 5, 2008 (the day after election day). Congratulations! You have been named Director
of Barack Obama’s Transition Team—an awesome responsibility, indeed. Meanwhile, the president-elect
has left for a brief post-campaign vacation, but has asked you to fax a memo for him to read before a
face-to-face meeting next Wednesday.
Luckily, you took a great course on “The Modern Presidency” when you were at Syracuse
University, so you aren’t as panicky as you might otherwise be. Based on what you learned in that
course (and, of course, you saved all your books and lecture notes), reproduce that memo here, outlining
some of the principal things that President-elect Obama must consider in setting up his administration. In
particular, what must he do to avoid being sucked into the worst aspects of the "court culture" (and,
equally importantly, to avoid the novice's "outsider" mistakes that some other new presidents have
made)? What are some of the issues relating to congressional relations, staffing, media, etc., that your
boss needs to keep in mind as he takes the oath of office? In short, what might an "ideal" presidency look
like--what might constitute a formula for future inclusion in the small category of presidential "greats"?
[Note: The president-elect may appreciate the significance of image and hype in a campaign, but
he is a real stickler for substance from aides. The more specific this memo is, the more likely you are to
solidify your high standing in his opinion--and the more you'll enhance your chances to play a major role
in the new administration itself. Feel free to use any information you have on the current transition—
including anything you might find on Obama’s transition site: www.change.gov , or any other relevant site.
But be aware that it is NOT required that you consult such materials.]
2. You are an acclaimed and historically-oriented political scientist. As the culminating project of your
career, you have decided to design and conduct a new survey of presidential "greatness"—informed by
your intimate knowledge and understanding of the office and its 42 occupants (counting Cleveland only
once). In particular, you note that many of the earlier “ranking” systems are based upon assumptions that
equate “greatness” to assertions of presidential power in ways that the post-Watergate and post-modern
presidency seem to challenge. [NOTE: The term “post-modern” is used here as it was discussed in this
course in respect to George H.W. Bush and the post-Cold War world.]
But while you may be brilliant, you are not rich; therefore, you must apply to a foundation for
research money to support your work. Reproduce parts of that application here, briefly detailing: (1) the
criteria (listed in order of the importance you give them) you intend to employ as indicators of "greatness,"
(2) explanation of the ways, if any, that your measures might differ from previously-produced ratings or
surveys (paying particular attention to post-Watergate and post-Cold War circumstance, and (3)
descriptions and assessments of how you would rate six actual presidents according to the criteria you
have specified. [Among those you discuss, one should have served prior to 1945, and at least two more
prior to 1974.] Remember, the chances of your getting a grant depend on the substance and
persuasiveness of your proposal (and the foundation explicitly requires that you support what you write
with specific references to relevant scholarship)!
[over]
PART II (30 points).
[Note: Whichever question you choose in this section, you must draw extensively upon Klein in what you
write. However, as always, this does not mean that you can neglect other relevant sources!]
3. One scholar of the modern presidency has written: “Today’s Chief Executives are forced to govern
within the nonstop pressures of the “perpetual campaign.” Their universe is dominated by almost daily
public opinion polls, the cacaphony of 24/7 news networks and talk radio, the ‘instant analysis’ of
thousands of bloggers, and demands for ever more ‘access’ and public accountability. As a result, the
campaign consultant has been transformed from a quadrennial expert into a permanent and essential
component of the president’s White House staff—from electoral wizard to maestro of governance.”
Focusing on the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, how
accurate an insight do you believe this to be? Why? [NOTE: Do not replicate the paper you have already
written on Carter and Reagan; this asks you to apply the concept to these other presidents.]
4. As a distinguished graduate of Syracuse University and its Maxwell School, and as someone whose
heroes in life are James Carville and Karl Rove, you have decided to join with several other SU alums to
form a brand new campaign consulting firm. Young as you are, you hope to attract presidential hopefuls
as clients, in part by persuading them that your superior education has given you the tools to avoid the
failures and catastrophes characteristic of so many other campaign consultants. Write a prospectus (that
is, a description/mission statement) for your firm that focuses explicitly on how you differ from the more
problemmatic firms already in existence. Remember, the more effective and substantive the prospectus,
the more likely you are to attract clients!
PART III (30 points).
5. You are a distinguished political scientist, whose research focuses primarily on the American
Presidency. As such, you have been invited to edit and write the introduction to a volume of essays,
entitled The Post-Modern Presidency: Toward a New Paradigm of Leadership. The sponsors of this
volume anticipate that it will become a classic in its field, and that the “new paradigm” to which the subtitle
refers will distinguish its analytical models from those associated with the “modern” presidency.
Reproduce your “Introduction” here. In it, of course, you will explain clearly and persuasively how the
“post-modern” presidency evolves from and both resembles and differs from its “modern” precursor.
[Keep in mind that you are writing about the institution of the presidency, and not just presidents.] Since
this is a scholarly essay, be sure to draw upon relevant insights of scholars and other commentators as
you write.
6. In writing about Dwight Eisenhower, George Reedy said:
... the American people found an answer to their deep yearning for a presiding officer over their
affairs. They did not care about his lack of expertise because they recognized instinctively that
expertise can always be hired. They were looking for a symbol of legitimacy, continuity, and
morality; and perhaps they were right in elevating these qualities to a position higher than the
manipulative skill that resolves problems. It is possible that in reviewing the Eisenhower
administration, we are looking at a blueprint for the future of the presidency. [Twilight of the
Presidency, p. 72]
How descriptive do you believe this analysis to be of the elections and presidencies of both Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush? Why, and in what ways? Finally, if you choose to carry the concept further, how
does it apply to the campaign of Barack Obama? [This last component is NOT required.]