After considering both sides of this debate, I would have to say that I agree with the claims of Quirk and state that I personally feel that the character, experiences, merit, and other personality traits of the person holding the presidency has a greater impact on politics than the institution itself does. I feel this way for many reasons, but above all, I would argue that the presidency has not changed all that much since its birth in the eighteenth century and that much of its change was implemented and shaped by the decisions and events dictated by past presidents and their administrations. If you think about it, our political institutions would not exist without the actors that fill their roles and who engage in political activities. Their views and ideologies shape their policies and dictate their priorities, which shape our government and the people’s perception of it.
Oftentimes, I think that people underestimate the power that an individual can have, whether it be positive or negative. Take Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolf Hitler as two very different examples; these two people had significant roles in two different historical events. Dr. King’s charisma and incredible ability to relate to and lift people up brought great inspiration in the Civil Rights Movement, whereas Hitler took advantage of a vulnerable Germany by asserting himself as a powerful leader and brainwashing them into thinking that genocide could ever be justified. Furthermore, I think that a person with average leadership skills that blends into the background, a wallflower per se, usually does not have a great impact on the institution aside from perhaps making people think they wasted time that could have been dedicated to bettering various things, but on the other hand, a leader with great charisma and communication skills can make significant waves. On the opposite side of the spectrum would be a leader that has serious defects, as put by Quirk, can cause serious issues and chaos. Two examples that come to mind are FDR, whose incredible leadership and ability to bring people together on a common ground in response to a national crisis, and then Donald Trump, whose negative words and actions incited a horrendous act of violence against the Capitol and many Congresspeople.
Presidential competency can also largely dictate the successfulness of a presidency; the president is in charge of a great deal of tasks, such as overseeing the relationships between and the functioning of the many federal government entities, and if he is not competent in performing these often complex tasks, then this could lead to the ultimate failure of an administration. A president that is more successful and/or competent in delegating tasks, managing time and priorities, and communicating with others is much more likely to implement policy, make positive and lasting change, and be perceived as a legitimate leader. A president’s competence is also vital in situations regarding national security; a president’s decisions can determine whether or not a disastrous war breaks out. Take George W. Bush and the disastrous war with the Middle East–due to his personal beliefs, he was able to sway intelligence agencies into confirming that the “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist. Not only can a president’s competence determine his success, but other factors, such as his energy and emotional intelligence can, as well. As Quirk points out, energetic lobbying and advocacy from the president can sway the results of a critical vote.
Hey Riley,
The office of the President has evolved, acquired power, and changed over the years to fit with modern requirements. The ways that is has changed can all be equated to expansions of power taken by sitting Presidents. In this way Presidents have molded their seat of office. Because of this I completely agree with your argument and the argument that Quirk makes. While the Executive is a massively complex apparatus, the President decides the limits of power, intervenes on their own behalf, sets agenda, and appoints positions. Each of these actions traces back to the President. Success or failure has many variables, but the charisma, the personality and the public persona of a President can not be discounted when you are taking count of a Presidents success.
Hi Lilian,
Thanks for commenting and expanding on my points and thoughts; I feel that yes, the institution itself is important, but that it is the dependent variable that comes as a result of the people that fill these positions, which are the independent variable. Without people, we would not have these positions and institutions at all. Without people, we don’t have politics.
HI Riley! Thanks for reminding me to comment on these posts, lol
I think you make a great and informed argument for the capability of individual presidents, but I still think I side with the opposing view. You cite many transformational leaders based on their individual strength (FDR and Hitler, but I could throw a ton of other examples in here like Lincoln). I feel, first, it is important to separate the individual as a part of the state vs an individual as an individual. Though King was the head of an immense movement which led to an outpouring of change, it is important to note that he was not acting in a governmental capacity and was therefore not constrained in what he could do. It was King and other civil rights activists who brought about the change in atmosphere which allowed for certain things to become possible. Leaders, on the other hand, being subject to the will of the people, are constrained in a way that free actors are not. If things are generally going well for a majority of people in the current era of political governance, than those people will be unwilling to vote against their interests. The examples you cite, whilst being talented, influential, and “great” (not morally, Hitler wasn’t great) men, all were able to take advantage of deleterious situations and use them to shift the status quo in their favor. Hitler and FDR both took advantage of the same event, the Great Depression, to change how people thought about and interacted with their government. Lincoln came in during a similar crisis, the Civil War, which allowed him to literally restructure society, though he was cut short by his assassination.
A point I will concede to you is that poor men have the ability to mess up a moment. Take Andrew Johnson, or your example of Trump. People who fight against the moment they find themselves in or simply fail to govern (Pierce and Buchanan can be identified here as well) can utterly destroy what could be a moment for foundational change. In this context, a person’s abilities do matter, but they are still ultimately subservient to the passage of time and the capabilities that are allotted to them.
Hi Seneca,
I am glad I could remind you to post on the blog (haha) and thank you for commenting on my post. It is interesting to hear your point of view and arguments for the opposing side; it helps me to expand my point of view and consider points that I had not before. I would have to refute your claim about the separation between a politician and the state–that they are merely public leaders that are servants to their constituents. I do agree with you that this is the case in a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world–we live in a world where most, if not all, politicians make decisions not because they want to do what is best for the public or because it is what the public wants, but because they think it will allow them to stay in office. I do see merit in your argument that a president is restrained by their capabilities allotted to them by the Constitution, but the Constitution is so ambiguous that one can argue through all the loopholes to justify just about any actions they want. This is why the presidency has grown and expanded so much throughout its history and why it will likely continue to do so in the future. Thanks!