Pika and Maltese Chapter 4

 What kinds of people have served as president?  What are their personal qualities?  How did these shape their conduct and decisions while in office?  How much importance should one prescribe to the president’s personal characteristics?  Are these elements powerful predictors of performance in office?

 Experts have not reached an agreement on the importance of these factors, other than to say that they matter.  Not to mention that the public cares and so does the media, although that may be a chicken and egg phenomenon.  There are a lot of people who say they voted for the person, not the party.

 The alternative is to argue that presidents themselves don’t matter and instead the context and situation that surrounds them is what drives their performance.  According to the text, Stephen Skowronek looks at a number of different presidents and argues that changes in the social and political life in the US determines the context presidents face and thus has a much larger effect on their choices in office than their personal characteristics.  In other words, context drives the choice set that any one particular president might be faced with.

 I think most scholars would argue that while context may determine the actual choice set presidents have to choose from…  Their personal characteristics are going to play a large role in which options they choose from that choice set.

 All presidents bring to the job personality traits, attitudes, and beliefs.  The differences in these, between presidents and candidates, is one reason why some get elected over others, right?  So, they must be important.  These characteristics take shape within a distinct social context (just like they do with the rest of us), based on family, community, education, adult professional experiences, etc.

 Presidents do have enormous power to shape public events, even if the environment/context also has an impact.  “Environments are always mediated by the individuals on whom they act.”

 Just as experts disagree on what matters, they also disagree on how to rate presidential performance.  Take a second and everyone in the room rank the last five presidents (Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan) from top to bottom.

 There’s confusion over how to rate the president?  What criteria might we consider?  Are we going to rate subjectively or objectively?  What exactly are we going to consider in our rating?  What does it mean for a president to be “successful?”

 So, where do presidents come from?  Probably the number one indicator of social standing in the United States is occupation, and the occupation of the father generally gives us an idea of whether or not someone is “starting from a favorable position.”  While we’d like to think that ANYONE can be president, in reality the mostly come from wealthy families.  In fact, five distinguished families have produced ten presidents.  Only four presidents can be considered as coming from lower than middle class backgrounds.

 Only nine presidents have had no formal instruction at a college or university, and the trend has been towards presidents with higher levels of college education.  Most come from highly regarded institutions, with Harvard leading the list.  More presidents attended private than public schools.

 While their families have broad occupational history, there is much less diversity in their own careers prior to and outside politics.  Carter was a peanut farmer.  For most US presidents, the road involved a long stint in public office with careers usually begun at lower levels of the political system when they were in their 20s or 30s.  Generally, they would move up by winning offices with larger constituencies.

 If you cross the background of the presidents with where they are ranked, it’s clear that coming from an upper-class background with a good education tends to lead to more “success” in office.  Additionally, Neustadt makes it pretty clear that political experience is also important, although two glaring discrepancies (Nixon and Lyndon Johnson) show there can be exceptions to the rule.

 Historians have used psychological concepts to help explain why political figures behave as they do, a field of study known as psychobiography.  James Barber developed a set of classifications along these lines in attempt to predict general patterns of presidential conduct in office.

 Barber looks at three personal characteristics: ◦ Character ◦ World View ◦ Style  And two environmental characteristics: ◦ Power situation ◦ Climate of expectations

 Character, which is developed during childhood, manifests itself in two dimensions: ◦ Energy ◦ Affect  Presidents may be active or passive in terms of the effort invested in their jobs.  They also may be positive or negative about their positions.

 He uses this to put together a four-cell typology: ◦ Active-positive: exhibit personal growth and adaptability; they enjoy their work and find it a challenge to use power productively as a means to pursue goals beneficial to others. They have a sense of self-confidence expressed in goal- oriented behavior, yet they are flexible in their pursuit of goals and willing to change or abandon them rather than suffer a costly political defeat.

 Active-negative: invest a great deal of energy in the office, but do not appear to derive enjoyment from it. Rather than using their power to benefit the citizenry, they seek power its own sake. They are driven to pursue a political career instead of doing it for pleasure. They tend to have a low self- image. They will not compromise and may pursue a course of action even if it’s clear its not working.

 Passive-positive: not in politics to seek power either for the betterment of the American public or to compensate for their own sense of inadequacy. They choose politics because they are lovers of politics. The enjoy people and want to help them by doing small favors. This makes them feel wanted and loved. They tend to have low self- esteem and a superficial optimism about life. The let others set goals for them and find it difficult to make decisions.

 Passive-negative: show an unwillingness to invest much energy in the office and a lack of pleasure in serving. They pursue public service because they believe it is something they ought to do. They feel useless and compensate by dutifully agreeing to work on behalf of their fellow citizens.