The role of the President has been somewhat mythicized over time, think George Washington and his cherry tree. But this legacy does not spur from nowhere. Individual Presidents have had a marked role in setting the tone of the Presidency, in passing policy that would affect the nation for years to come, and in changing how we view Presidential power.
That is in no way to say that the role of Congress, of events, of public opinion have no role. Each of these play a significant part in the success or failure of any administration. But the person who occupies the seat of the Presidency also plays a part. The major critique against this thinking is that it is easy to have a scapegoat when the administration steps wrong or when the public is unhappy. In this way we equate visibility with importance and inflate the role that the person plays with the power of the branch of government. While the President is an easy figurehead to blame, this does not mean that the President as a person is without reproach in these scenarios.
The President has significant power in choosing staff, negotiating with allies, setting up agencies and institutions, pushing legislation that will be debated, signing and vetoing and passing executive orders. All of these play significant roles in the overall shape that an administration will take. Outside circumstances may force a President to deal with a crisis or to shift agenda priorities, but the President is impugned with the power to make the checklist of what will be accomplished or at least attempted.
In times of crises, moments that have the potential to shape not just the Presidents legacy, but the future of the country, these decisions often come down to the President. Of course, there are advisors, councils and agencies that inform all possible routes but when many of these decisions are uncertain, it comes down to Presidential decision making.
While there are many variables that should be examined when looking for patterns of success or failure. We cannot discredit the character and personality of the President when making associations. President George Washington set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power which has remained despite violent protests like we have seen recently. This was not directly implied in the Constitution or in any other institutional patterns. His character, charisma and personality informed and set the mold for what the office of the President would look like. In this same way, many other Presidents have expanded on this role and seen success and failure by their own work.
I agree that the personality of the individual in office plays a part in certain aspects of the office. However, I think the overall impact of the times the President comes to power combined with the entrenched bureaucracy play a much greater role. Ronald Reagan may very well have been successful in office had Jimmy Carter not been such a disaster due to his personal leadership traits. However, the historical juxtaposition of Carter’s failure and Reagan’s success made his successes much more amplified. Personality traits can help or hinder a President in messaging but the actual changes they hope to make are much more dependent on the times they live in. Another example, Bill Clinton was an excellent communicator and possessed effective leadership skills but was unable to achieve any success in healthcare reform. This was purely due to the times in which he acted and not impacted at all by his leadership skills or personality.
Hi Lillian!
While, yes, it is true that a president’s personality has a major role in what a president does and how they do it (just look at LBJ or Nixon), these qualities of the president are often subservient to the overall capabilities they are allotted due to the political atmosphere at the time. Essentially every Democratic administration since Truman wanted to act on healthcare, but due to the Cold War and many other extenuating factors, these people (many of whom were exceedingly talented and capable) were unable to get it done. A president’s place in time determines what they may accomplish, regardless of their feelings on the matter. If they could, every president would be an FDR in terms of the substantive and qualitative change they bring to the political system, but this is simply not the reality.
Hi Lillian,
Thanks for your post–I would agree with you wholeheartedly in your claims regarding the legacy left behind from different presidents and the different policies that they enact. When people talk about presidents, they often talk about them as people and what they accomplished more so than the time in which they acted. Yes, this is an important factor that had a major impact on their actions as president, but I believe that we are able to control our fate for the most part. There are elements of our fate that are beyond our control, but we can control how we respond to these unprecedented events. Presidents with great leadership capability and competence are better at responding to these events than those that do not. You make an excellent point when you state that the president, as the apex of the bureaucracy, has the power to make decisions that inevitably determine what will come out of these events.
Hi Lillian,
I strongly agree with you in that personalities matter, especially when concerning the legacies left behind from presidents. These legacies are not just solely based on the president themselves, but how the handled the situations in which they were given at the time. A president that is called upon to make more of an appearance due to nation turmoil, doesn’t necessarily make them a better president due to the fact a different president was simply not put into the same situations.