To say that the dynamic of how a president (or any person for that matter) functions is not influenced by the outside world dramatically decreases the understanding of that individual. When reading Skowronek, I was surprised to find myself being able to categorize the presidents that I can think of to accurately fit into his suggested categories. The way in which Skowronek thought of the four types of presidents “politics” is well elaborated and makes sense. The presidency is encompassed by an individual’s interaction with the issues of the current times, a president’s entire agenda is motivated by what needs to be done for the American people at that period of time. Our nation doesn’t stay the same with one political group that agrees all the time on everything with no conflicts. Our nation and globe is ever changing, and it must be acknowledged that these conditions can have an effect on a presidency. A period where little is happening and the United States continues as normal, doesn’t mean that the president in command at this time is better or worse than a president who had to make a nationwide decision to invade a country. An individual can heavily influence a presidency and make a presidency a good or bad one depending on what they are handed, but this does not mean that the circumstances of the time have no effect on the outcome of a presidency. There are unpredictable factors that come into play. Skowronek isn’t denying that different presidents acted greater than others, he is merely adding that circumstances play a role. The circumstances not only influence the president directly, but also influence how the people view the president’s actions. If a president of the past raised taxes and people did not like this and decided they were a bad president, but now vote for a president due to their liking of better roads from tax payer dollars, this doesn’t make the prior president worse than the current one. Skowronek is providing organization to compare and contrast the institution in a way that is fair by considering the circumstances of the nation and its influence on the presidency. 

Both sides make excellent points about the most effective means for examining the successes and failures of the presidency, but I tend to align more Skowronek. The main reason I tend to agree more Skowronek is his methods provide a more comprehensive view that considers more factors. Presidents in typical fashion are judged based on character, wins are because of the right combinations, and losses are the wrong ones. In this way of thinking every incumbent can be successful; however, this disregards the temporality of the position. Some presidencies are more set up to succeed than others. Considering presidents as a product of the time and using that as a benchmark allows the examination of the change from the benchmark. Presidents that would be considered failures by leadership and characteristic standards could be seen as successful and vice versa. There are many situations that may increase the likelihood that incumbents are successful. Things like the previous president’s alignment, may change the views the American people have towards that president, especially when considering the success or lack of it. Also, important is the way the institutions are leaning. If the previous president was successful incumbents may be faced with a more difficult starting spot, and the opposite may be true. In these scenarios the incumbent is merely a product of the temporal time, and they should be compared with like situations to determine relative success. The president may be influenced by his character, but effectiveness of that character is most limited or expanded by the situations the character is in. They may make different decisions policy wise, but the president is making decisions on the same things, relative to the four situations the incumbent may enter. Using this method should be the primary method, because in the end it is more accurate and applicable. Determining the situation is the first step then the comparison is easy. It also allows for a step-by-step analysis of what decisions will work in the different scenarios the incumbents enter. Using a character view does not allow for this comparison and merely relies on the policy that is implemented as a benchmark.

The consequences behind an American presidency is largely determined by the individuals who are elected to that position, not the time in which they are elected. My reasoning for this stems from the fact that the “success” of a presidency almost entirely relies on how the individuals utilize the tools at their disposal. I will briefly touch on the pro argument for this debate, which argues that the political environment is the primary factor in regard to a president’s performance, and briefly explain its importance. Then, I will rationalize my reasoning as to why it is the individuals who define the presidency, not the environment.

Touching on the importance of the political environment, it certainly does play an important factor that will help determine the success or failure of a presidency. The environment sets up the foundation for which the president will act on. If it is a time of extreme political turmoil, the president could very well have a harder time being successful, but they are not without control of the situation. To simply say that a presidency can be defined from the moment they take office is way too much of a stretch, in my opinion, and it fosters an environment where presidents are not held accountable for their actions. I also take issue with the definitions placed on the environment of American presidencies, such as Jeffersonian democracy between 1800-1828. While these eras mark a sort of political trend that dominates American politics, it does not take into account the overall complex, perhaps short term, issues that arise during one’s presidency. Such issues are almost entirely in the control of the president. But in order for the president to be successful, they must take the proper individual steps that lead to it. While I do believe individual skill and leadership capabilities are key factors that will help define success, not having those skills will almost certainly doom a presidency. Taking the example of dysfunctional and deficient presidents that Paul highlights, we can see that these individuals will have the most trouble in office regardless of the political environment. At the end of the day, it is the competency level of an individual that will define an administration’s success, as those competencies will directly contribute to the strategy of the individual who will then utilize the proper tools to achieve their goals. The political environment provides the framework for policy making, while individual competency will provide the framework to achieve strategy.

The President’s ability to succeed, I believe, is influenced by the time he lives in. This is because the Presidents are mythicized through their term and after; allowing them to have a much greater influence than many might think! These mythicization, idolization, and demonization are all influenced by the era these people lived in and how they were thought of even during their Presidency, not just long after. 

George Washington was idolized for what he was able to do, the actions that led to the creation of the nation we hold today. He was present in the right time to achieve these goals, living in the time of revolution against the British Empire. The man even turned down the position of Commander of the Revolutionary forces, suggesting someone else but his fellow delegates pushed him enough that he would agree. Despite his hesitations, his results would let him be the first President voted in unanimously! The era he lived would all allow him to achieve the goal of founding the United States and lead to his place as President of the United States.

Jimmy Carter fell into obscurity and ridiculed despite success in aiding Africa and improving health there. It was not seen as an overly important thing to the American people at the time so he did not feed into the mentality of the people of his time. While many Americans will mock his term and successes, the people of Africa do greatly appreciate him and his stance against the dominating white minority in South Africa. Despite the good there, it was overshadowed by other failings that people were more influenced by such as; the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan which played into their Red Scare and even the Iranian hostage situation which hurt his image. In the end, he failed to win a reelection thanks to the drop in popularity.

Overall, I think that there is indeed an importance to the times a person is in. The events that will occur, the views of the people on those events, and how people view your success and failure. The ability of a President to succeed is interconnected to these events and how they use the tools at their disposal to try and do what’s best for their nation.

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.

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. 

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.

OK so i’ve read Battle Royale, in translation, but I keep seeing the phrase in gaming Christmas advertising and have no idea what they mean by it. But it is a catchy phrase.

Pick a side, you get to choose, and write 300-400 words to convince your colleagues that either Quirk or Skowronek is correct.