Skowronek’s model estimates a president’s capabilities base upon the political time in which they find themselves in relation to the predominant political structure of the time. This model is extremely effective, but has come under fire for seemingly writing-off the personal qualities of a president. This is a gross misrepresentation of Skowronek’s work and findings. Whilst a president’s personal abilities are integral to how they accomplish their goals and perform their job, what goals they are able to accomplish and the estimation of their performance are far more dependent upon their position within the political cycle of the rise, reign, decay, and fall of regimes.
What a president is able to accomplish rests upon the environment in which they find themselves in power. If a president comes to office in the midst of a disaster that challenges the established social and political order in ways it cannot match, that president will be capable of much more profound change through restructuring in order to meet the challenge they face than a president in better times. President’s seeking to change the social and political order in moments where it has not yet gone into wane end up ineffectual due to their place in history, as seen by many a president rendered moot by their placement in the cycle, such as Nixon, Andrew Johnson, or Wilson.
This is not to say that a president’s personality has absolutely no bearing on a situation. President’s are still obviously autonomous actors within their political contexts. The problem with Greenstein’s rebuttal is that it misreads Skowronek’s theory as robbing agency from a president in favor of the time they inhabit. In fact, a president and their personality have a dramatic effect on the cycle of political time, either lengthening or shortening the established regime based upon their efforts. It is simply that their efforts are situated in relation to the period that they are in that constrains what they are able to do. A president may take up the process of articulation with gusto or preside over the end of a regime with tremendous tumult, but, as Skowronek elucidates, the end result remains the same.
This is a great interpretation and expansion on the arguments laid out in the chapter.
While I agree with you that a Presidents agency is not stripped, I would argue against the end all significance of the wheel of failure and success. Many Presidents have failed in moments of crises, others have seen massive success and gone on to point out that crises as their legacy making moment. I’m thinking of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis for instance. This is significant.
While there are Councils, advisors, staff and experts who surround the President, those positions are selected by the President. The attitude, character and charisma of the President play important roles in setting the foundations of an administration. Those foundations will go on to inform any decisions. In this way, all paths lead back to the individuality of the person who holds the seat of the President.
I don’t mean to overinflated this role, but the President as an individual, and the role of the administration, who has been selected by the President can change the cycle of failure and success in moments of crises.
Seneca, I have enjoyed class with you and have always looked forward to your responses. They are well thought and well written. Thank you for taking the time to be invested in the class, I have appreciated it. I hope you enjoy the rest of your time as a student!
Hi Lillian!
I believe I agree with you quite a bit. Crises offer moments where a president can prove their political mettle, and as a result must be calculated into their estimation. It just so happens that most of these crises end up destroying the previous cycle of political regime because they reveal immense laws in the system when presidents are unable to act. When a president is able to respond to some crisis like JFK (as you astutely point out) and is able to respond efficiently without enacting some grand political change, they are usually acknowledged for it. Other times, however, a poorly-responded-to crisis can speed up the death throes of a political regime (I am thinking of Buchanan’s inaction towards the violent upheaval of the Civil War or the Missteps of both W. Bush and Trump in relation to 9/11 and Covid, respectively, which led to the undercutting of Reaganism). As you note, crises is an integral matter in the appreciation of a president’s job performance.
I have appreciated writing to (with?) you as well throughout the semester, and wish you the happiest of holidays :))
Seneca,
I tend to agree with your assessment although the more I think about it there’s validity to bothe arguments. While the President does choose their advisors and staff there is a lot of entrenched bureaucracy that they have no say in selecting. That bureaucracy can make it very difficult to achieve any forward momentum in government. Also, the advisors that the President chooses often have their own agendas which involve self promotion even at the expense of the President’s policies.I believe that both of our arguments are sound even though the subject is more complex than either philosophy allows for.
Thanks,
Tim F
Hi Tim!
I am inclined to agree, the power the old brass holds over an incoming administration is certainly hard to overcome and likely acts as a roadblock between any president and the change they wish to install. When a new regime comes into power, it is no coincidence that they often serve a large amount of terms in the presidency (the Jeffersonian Republican’s dominance until Jackson, the Republican’s domination at the latter half of the 19 century, the 5 terms served out between FDR and Truman, etc.)
Hi Seneca,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts and comments! I will respectfully disagree with and refute a few of your claims; for starters, I would like to argue that the cycle that appears to occur in politics and in our government’s history are not simply just because regimes ebb and flow all on their own, but because those that occupy the office make these fluctuations happen. Different ideologies ebb and flow, which as a result, shape the presidency and the other institutions impacted by it. I do not feel that Skowronek has completely disregarded the importance and the role of the president’s personal characteristics by any means, but I do think that he believes the shape and condition of the government itself plays a larger role in how a presidency goes than the president itself, and this is where I have to disagree. I would also like to add that every president, regardless of whether or not there is a current crisis, will inevitably try to go against what their predecessor did with their presidency, not only to create their own legacy and to appear more productive, but also because it is part of the inevitable disruption that Skowronek was talking about. I also feel that there are really not a lot of constraints behind what a president can and cannot do. Everything pretty much goes aside from blatant tyranny–I mean a certain president was able to incite an uprising on the capitol and was still not removed from office–and this is largely due to the ambiguity in the Constitution. If a president is able to effectively argue cause for his actions, then they can be seen as Constitutional. Take Lincoln’s utilization of his emergency powers, Jefferson’s role in the Louisiana Purchase, and George W. Bush’s actions in the War on Terror as examples: they made these choices without confronting Congress and were able to argue them as being Constitutional out of necessity and what is best for America.
Seneca,
I completely agree that the power of a President is dependent on the current environment that they exist inside. The ability to accomplish tasks and what they will try to advance are all dependent on what is occurring in the world and how people are reacting to it. What sort of topics and agenda they are playing into is active upon such tidings of events. You have this occur a lot with the change of Democrat to Republican to Democrat with out Presidential elections. When looking to George W Bush Jr who kept us in a war overseas in the Middle East for years and spiked his approval rating, you had the people tire of it and elect a Democrat which would be Barack Obama. This also made him more appealing and his actions too as the environment of the nation was tired of being abroad, fighting a war was supported out of debatable circumstances. Whenever an event occurs, people will respond to that event and it opens pathways for the future delegates to manage and stand against/for depending on the situation at hand. Their performance being as positive for as long as the people deem it so because they are the ones who also decide what is good or bad through a sort of mob mentality at times. There could be withheld information that is later revealed but by then the viewpoints were already made in the past. You can see this with Reagan arming certain groups that would later become an issue for us, years down, but at the time he was one of the highest approved Presidents for a long time.
Seneca,
You are correct that the political environment does sort of set up for what is achievable for a president, to a certain extent. Obviously, a president pulling the American people out of a negative environment will go and possibly determine how famous they are in terms of history, but it is still the competency level of the individual that makes such an achievement happen. As you sort of point out in your debate, the political environment serves as a framework that will essentially guide the president’s strategy. How that environment is handled is purely determined by the individual’s strategy and the numerous factors that tie into it.