I have to defend Skowronek. I believe that the President’s ability to succeed is greatly enhanced by the times he lives in historically. Also, as he aptly pointed out some of the most successful Presidents in American history have come after Presidents who have been considered utter failures. The Carter-Regan transition would be the most recent example. Skowronek isn’t saying that the success of these Presidents was solely the result of their place in history but rather that their place in history made success more attainable.
As Skowronek says it is fairly obvious that a President’s success is not determined by the “idiosyncrasies” of personality but rather subject to the ebb and flow of institutional government. Skowronek also succinctly points out how easy (and often) Presidents find themselves caught up in the “conflicting purposes of the institution they represent.”
Skowronek is accurate to say that the President’s personality and drive to succeed is not the main factor determining the success of their administration. Each President over the course of history has had to adapt their will (or personality) to the limitations of the office. The Presidency is restrained by the evergrowing government apparatus
that drives it.
The President’s personality does control what they prioritize or what agenda they put forth. Personality also plays a part in gaining and maintaining public support for actions they intend to initiate. However, the political goals and agendas of the President are merely wish lists. The actual success of failure of the President is more determined by the particular political cycle in which the President finds themselves
Apart from the political cycle many other outside factors including history and tradition limit the President’s actions. The President must also respond to any number of outside emergencies which are unable to be predicted but could alter the direction of the administration or limit the options available to them.
In short , I argue that personality traits can be effective on the campaign trail but less so in the actual governance. Many other historical, institutional, and frankly unpredictable factors way heavily on the President’s ability to succeed.
Hey Tim,
While I agree that the ever increasingly large apparatus of the Executive branch plays a major role in every administrations, I have to counter your main point. You argue that success or failure is not about individuality or even necessarily the agenda set but the cycle of success and failure. While I do think it is easier to highlight successes after an administration has failed, I think this does not encapsulate the role of the President. Skowronek himself states that success occurs during the administration. It is not a legacy question, it relies on what actually happened and how it is framed In this way the President has massive power in shaping agenda and in shaping how policy is viewed. Is it viewed as being a success? Is the President able to tap into what the public cares about and solve those issues successfully? While I do believe that the Executive branch is a massively complex system, I think more than we think is reliant on the President and the team that he selects.
I agree Tim, I believe that personality runs secondary to the political apparatus a president is positioned within, but I don’t believe that personality should be disregarded outright. It is simply that no matter the personality, ambitions, and power of a president, they are constrained within the allotted capabilities that the political system at that moment allows. A president may be talented and eager to enact broad change, but based upon the health of the political system, they may end up enacting very little. Clinton and Theodore Roosevelt are excellent examples. Both are inconceivably talented men who did, in many ways, change some functions of how the system operates. However, their positions within the cycle of political fatigue were inopportune for them to actually fundamentally change the public’s relationship with politics in profound ways. Though Teddy did make an indelible impact on the system as a whole with his sheer charisma, he was unable to accomplish what he truly wanted due to the constrains of the time. The same is true of Clinton, who infamously said “the era of big government is over” in spite of his high aspirations and liberal lean as a result of the profound impact Reaganomics left on the political apparatus as a whole.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for posting; it was interesting to read your point of view from the opposite side. Yes, I do agree with you and Skowronek that the time in which a president occupies his office is influential on his overall success, but I think that his personality, character, and ability to lead are even more so. Yes, perhaps being president in a time where tragedy has struck or circumstances are at a low can make being considered an extraordinary president a more attainable feat, but without leadership ability and the right mindset, it could just make things worse. For instance, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a wonderful leader with charisma and the ability to connect to and bring together Americans during a time of tragedy, did what many other presidents throughout history were not able to do. If we would have had a weaker (per se) president during the 30s, such as James Polk for a random example, then the Great Depression would have probably been even greater. I would also argue that a president’s personality and desires are a greater driving factor in our federal government than Skowronek argues for. Oftentimes, a president’s personality and leadership ability dictates how much (if any at all) he attempts to expand his powers and capabilities. Take Donald Trump for example, he took many questionable actions and measures, was never fully removed from office despite being impeached twice, and had a profound impact on the office of President and how it is perceived by the public, despite the Constitution or the institution itself remaining the same. Lastly, I would argue that a president’s personality, leadership abilities, and discretion are essential in navigating tragedy, as there have been plenty of instances of tragedy with different outcomes depending on the decisions made by the president. FDR created programs and welfare to help lift people out of one of the greatest economic depressions in American history, whereas George W. Bush aided in igniting a war with the Middle East because he was sure that weapons of mass destruction existed when they did not.
Tim,
You argue that the president is “subject to the ebb and flow of institutional government,” which is an interesting claim. Rather than looking at the president as a mere subject of the political environment, you keep note of the numerous instruments at the executive’s disposal that directly influence institutional government. Furthermore, the individual behind the presidency can easily understand the political environment and take proper steps to achieve his strategy through what is essentially, playing the political game. Consider the incredibly polarizing time we live in presently, if a president were to come in and truly understand what was going between the different levels of government, they would be able to come up with an adequate strategy to achieve their goals. For example, Bill Clinton tried to change healthcare for Americans during his presidency, but he was quickly shut down largely due to the strict plans he presented. In comes Obama, who saw success with Obamacare because he understood the political environment of the legislature and presented merely a foundation that they could build upon. This is just on example of a competent individual making unlikely change due to their individual actions.