(dichotomous) Understanding American History through the American Presidency Traditional presidency  Passive presidents  Congressional dominance  Party dominance  President didn’t travel  Restrained relationship to public  Small government  No staff  US NOT a world power Modern presidency (since FDR)  Active presidents  Dominance over Congress  Weak party  President travels a lot  Strong claim to relationship with public (“going public” strategy)  Large government  Large White House Staff  US a world power 1

What about understanding American history through the “Critical Elections”?  Federalist: (Washington)  Jeffersonian-Republicanism: (Jefferson)  Jacksonian Democracy: (Jackson)  Republican Nationalism: (Lincoln)  The System of 1896: (Republican dominance)  New Deal Liberalism: (FDR)  Reagan Revolution: 1980-now? (Reagan)  Critical elections (V. O. Key) 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1980, etc. 2

3

“Political Time” Presidency I (Skowronek)  Stephen Skowronek’s theory  “American Political Development” approach (American politics meets history)  The notion of periodization or political cycle  Repudiation of dichotomous approach putting the presidency in historical context, not just pre- modern/modern dichotomy  repudiation of psychological approach Personality has not much bearings on who makes a good president, contrary to conventional wisdom. Instead, “political time” matters for presidential success or failure. 4

“Political Time” Presidency II (Skowronek)  Stephen Skowronek’s focus on president’s relationship to 1) the nation’s dominant political regime and 2) the resources available to the presidency at that point in American history  Politics presidents make (cyclical pattern)  Politics of Reconstruction  Articulation  Preemption  Disjunction  then, reconstruction again 5

“Political Time” Presidency (Stephen Skowronek) 6

A dominant ideological regime and each president’s association with it 7

Political Times I  Politics of Reconstruction  Opposed to a weak regime  Wins a big election that repudiates weak regime’s ideas (“critical election theory”)  Mandate for change and wide leeway to control nation’s new agenda  Jackson (the Jacksonian Democracy) FDR (the New Deal era) Reagan (the “center-right” country) 8

Political Times II  Politics of Articulation (“faithful sons”)  Affiliated with a resilient regime  Sticking with dominant ideology of their party’s regime and carving out own policy niche  Dealing with conflicting factions with a strong regime  Polk (the Jacksonian Democracy) LBJ (the New Deal era) Bush 41 (center-right country) 9

Political Times III  Politics of Preemption  Opposed to a dominant regime  Have to co-opt some of the dominant regime’s ideas and little legitimate authority to change policy commitments  Andrew Johnson (vs. radical Republicans), Nixon (vs. liberal Democrats), Clinton (vs. conservative Republicans) 10

Political Times IV  Politics of Disjunction  Affiliated with a vulnerable regime  Can’t stand up for regime that is no longer popular, also can’t criticize it because it’s his own party  Less authority over national debate and tend to be seen as failures  John Quincy Adams (prior to Jackson) Hoover (prior to FDR) Carter (prior to Reagan) Cf) What if McCain had won in 2008? 11

Obama and the “Political Time” Presidency  How do you know about regime strength?  Resilient vs. vulnerable?  Is America still “center-right” country?  Has the “Reagan Revolution” ended?  Where is the Obama presidency placed?  Where does President Obama stand? What is his affiliation with the dominant system?  Does Obama belong to the politics of (second-round) preemption or reconstruction? 12

Will Obama Be Carter or Clinton? The Wall Street Journal, Nov 3, 2010  Will Barack Obama turn out to be Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton?  In his first State of the Union speech after the 1994 election, Mr. Clinton acknowledged he understood the voters’ message by telling the country, “The era of big government is over.” Mr. Clinton was perfectly comfortable offering a more centrist approach for the rest of his term and, in fact, alienated many party liberals who considered him a sell-out.  Mr. Carter, on the other hand, did not suffer nearly as large a midterm humiliation in the 1978 elections. Yet, he failed to see the writing on the wall – or if he saw it, refused to deal with the new political reality. Mr. Carter, you will remember, was defeated for re-election two years later.  Even before Tuesday’s voting, party liberals, many of whom have been critical of what they already consider too many compromises, were begging him not to react to the GOP victories by moving to the ideological center.  But given that the bottom line of his presidency will likely rest upon his ability to resurrect the economy before the 2012 election, Mr. Obama will have to be both lucky (internationally) and good (domestically). 13