GOVT 2302
The Personal Presidency
The 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
th
the 6 worst president while
th
Republicans ranked him the 6
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 Washington
Abraham 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 Pierce
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Warren 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 Persuasion
Crisis Leadership
Economic Management
Moral Authority
International Relations
Administrative Skills
Relations with Congress
Vision/Setting An Agenda
Pursued Equal Justice For All
Performance Within Context of Times
Public Persuasion
1 – Franklin Roosevelt
2 – Abraham Lincoln
3 – Ronald Reagan
40 – Franklin Pierce
41 - Andrew Johnson
42 – James Buchanan
Crisis Leadership
1 – Abraham Lincoln
2 – Franklin Roosevelt
3 – George Washington
40 – Andrew Johnson
41 - Franklin Pierce
42 – James Buchanan
Economic Management
1 – George Washington
2 – Abraham Lincoln
3 – Bill Clinton
40 – George W. Bush
41 – Herbert Hoover
42 – James Buchanan
Moral Authority
1 – George Washington
2 – Abraham Lincoln
3 – Franklin Roosevelt
40 – Andrew Johnson
41 – Richard Nixon
42 – James Buchanan
International Relations
1 – George Washington
2 – Franklin Roosevelt
3 – Abraham Lincoln
40 – James Buchanan
41 – George W. Bush
42 – William Henry Harrison
Administrative Skills
1 – George Washington
2 – Abraham Lincoln
3 – Franklin Roosevelt
40 – Warren G. Harding
41 - Andrew Johnson
42 – William Henry Harrison
Relations with Congress
1 – Franklin Roosevelt
2- Lyndon Johnson
3 – Abraham Lincoln
40 – John Tyler
41 – James Buchanan
42 – 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 Johnson
3 – Harry Truman
40 – Andrew Johnson
41 - Franklin Pierce
42 – James Buchanan
Performance Within Context of Times
1 – Abraham Lincoln
2- George Washington
3 – Franklin Roosevelt
40 – Franklin Pierce
41 – Andrew Johnson
42 – 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 Policy
Economic 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: Carter
Persian Gulf War: George H.W.
Bush
9/11: 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 the
dance 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 emotional
reward for that effort. The activity has a compulsive
quality, as if the man were trying to make up for
something 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 activenegative 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, otherdirected character whose life is a search for affection
as a reward for being agreeable and cooperative rather
than personally assertive. The contradiction is
between 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 at
New 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 selfesteem 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 passivenegative 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
Competitive
Collegial
Hiearchical
Competitive
Franklin Roosevelt
Collegial
John Kennedy
Hierarchical
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon