Stephen Skowronek’s The Politics Presidents Make Essay Locating Joe Biden in Political Time Introduction Stephen Skowronek's concept of political time provides an outline for comprehending American presidents' administration in connection to the political regimes they take over, bargain, and sometimes even change. In order to evaluate President Joe Biden's place in politics, it is necessary to situate his administration in the setting of Donald Trump's presidency. Four categories of presidencies are distinguished by Skowronek in The Politics Presidents Make: preemptive politics, politics of disjunction, politics of articulation, and politics of reconstruction. By using this perspective, we can gain a deeper understanding of the respective positions …show more content…
Skowronek's theory thus holds that Biden's presidency is a prime example of preemptive governance, characterized by a careful balancing act between encouraging change while maintaining political unity. Skowronek’s Political Time The theory of "political time" proposed by Stephen Skowronek provides a structure for comprehending the presidency within the framework of American political evolution. According to this concept, presidents are categorized according to how they relate to the prevailing political system of the time and referring “to the various relationships incumbents project between previously established commitments of ideology and interest and their own actions in the moment at hand”(Skowronek,1993). This idea suggests that a president's administration abilities and chosen course of action are greatly impacted by the historical context in which they operate. According to Skowronek, a president's effectiveness and prospects are intricately linked to the historical progression of presidential administration and are not solely determined by their personal qualities or the state of
Stephen Skowronek writes about political time and how one can determine the legacy president will leave behind at the time their presidency is done. The president has immense powers when he comes to office but the challenges they each face vary depending on the time they take office. Skowronek analyzes and demonstrates that the most essential factor for a president to attempt to legitimize his actions and orders will be the actions of the president before him. According to the actions of George W. Bush is how we can determine where Barack Obama falls under and following the chain the next president. If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election she would fall under the politics of articulation and Barack Obama would fall under the politics
Examining the conceptualizations and theories of Neustadt and Skowronek’s in comparative perspective, this essay makes the principal argument that both of these theories only represent partial explanations of how success and efficiency is achieved in the context of the Presidency. With Neustadt focusing saliently on the President’s micro-level elite interactions and with Skowronek adopting a far more populist and public opinion-based framework, both only serve to explain some atomistic facets of the Presidency. As such, neither is truly collectively exhaustive, or mutually exclusive of the other, in accounting for the facets of the Presidency in either a modern day or historical analytical framework. Rather, they can best be viewed as complementary theories germane to explaining different facets of the Presidency, and the different strengths and weaknesses of specific Administrations throughout history.
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
I will start with explaining Neustadt’s arguments about presidential power in his book. Then further my answer to the extent in which compare other political scholars, Skowronek, Howell and Edwards in response to Neustadt’s points of view about American presidency.
Beginning with the birth of the twentieth century, the United States was in a dilemma. America needed amelioration; the country had a tremendous amount of potential but was unable to put forth the necessary actions without the correct guidance. It was vital that the United States was pointed in the right direction or more problems would occur. America required political reform and the elimination of corruption caused by the government, thus, the time prevailed for the Progressive Presidents.
Shortly after the American Revolution, the United States entered an era of profound economic and social change that was dominated first by the Market Revolution and subsequently by Andrew Jackson’s skillful use of the power of the presidency to crack down on capitalist exploitation. Jackson’s first biographer, James Parton, however, describes the legacy of the seventh President’s administration as one fraught with controversy, “Andrew Jackson was a patriot, and a traitor. He was the greatest of generals, and wholly ignorant of the art of war. He was the most candid of men, and capable of the profoundest dissimulation. He was a democratic autocrat, an urbane savage, an atrocious saint.”
But, it also speaks to the wider systematic polarization within the American political system. Political polarization in the United States is a result of cultural and geographical polarization. South V. North, Republican V. Democrat and is firmly rooted in regional history. The cowboy persona which some of these Presidents and politicians choose to adopt, is inherently linked to the physical geographical place from which they hail and the role that place has played in the unfolding of American history. It shapes the character of, (as of yet at least) “the man”, his administration and ultimately the policy of the country for at least four years. The image and persona adopted by these men is nurtured by the regional culture and history of the place that they reside and represent. It can be seen in every president from Kennedy to Reagan and Bush to Obama.
Through Paul Quirk’s three presidency models that are self-reliant, minimalist, and strategic competence, we learn that there are three models that show us how the presidents use one of them to implement in the term of their presidency (POLS510 Lesson). According to Paul Quirk’s definitions about these three models, each and every president would be easily classified because of their governing style, such as being self-reliant that a president knows everything and is confident what to do and how to act, being minimalist that a president does not need to understand every and each political events and activities what’s going around homeland and world, and the president’s secretaries would take care of everything, and being strategic competence
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
The presidency of the United Sates of America has been an evolving office since the term of our first president, George Washington. This evolution has occurred because of the changing times and the evolution of society itself, but also because of the actions of the men who have become president. Starting in the 20th century, most have referred to the presidency as the modern presidency due to changes in both a president's power and the way that the office itself is viewed. As the office of the president has evolved so has who can become president evolved. Yet, even today there are certain individuals who because of their gender or race have yet to hold the office of the presidency. The men that have been president in our modern era have all had faults and greatness, some having more of one than of the other. The modern presidency is an office that many aspire to, but that few hold. The evolution of the office of the presidency has been one from that of a traditional role to that of a modern role that is forever evolving.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
Lyndon Johnson is an intimate, complex and ambitious portrait of a President. He came to office with strong ambitions to emphasize equality for all, to generate hopes for the Great Society, and to reshape his America, but ultimately he withdrew from the political arena where he fought so hard. Johnson’s legacy started with a tragedy and ended with a tragedy: the story began with the cold bullet that went through his predecessor’s head, which enveloped the country with anger, chaos, and mourning, and ended with the deaths of fifty-eight thousand Americans, which threw the nation into tumult.
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be addressed by the government, when it comes to the presidency, one person, although checked by various other divisions of the same government, has the power and responsibility to literally, as history has proven, change the world. The American people, "like all people everywhere, want to have our (political) cake and eat it too. We want a lot of leadership, but we are notoriously lousy followers" (Genovese). In other words the expectations the public has of the executive office are ever-changing since we demand that our leaders keep up with the evolving world around us and them. Throughout the past seventy eventful years alone, the American people's views, perceptions and demands of the Executive Office of American government have evolved simultaneously with the political and social events of that same time period.
Understanding and evaluating presidents’ performance often poses challenges for political experts. The nation votes one president at the time and each presidency faces different tests. The environments surrounding a presidency have a tremendous impact on the success and failure of that presidency. In addition, the president exercises his power through a check and balance system embody in the Constitution. As stated in (Collier 1959), the Constitution created a government of “separated institutions sharing power.” As a result, a president works with others institutions of the government to shape the nation’s agenda. Thus, determining a presidential performance becomes difficult, especially when it comes to comparing the performance among presidencies.