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.