I. Modern Presidency Approach http://www. biography Traditional presidency Passive presidents Congressional dominance Party dominance President didn’t travel Restrained relationship to public Small government No staff US NOT a world power Modern presidency since FDR in 1932) Active presidents Dominance over Congress Weak party President travels a lot Strong claim to relationship with public (“going public” strategy) Large government Large White House Staff US a world power

II. “Critical Elections” Approach “Modern Presidency Approach”  What’s wrong? Federalist: 1789-1800 (Washington era) Jeffersonian-Republicanism: 1800-1828 (Jefferson era) Jacksonian Democracy: 1828-1860 (Jackson era) Republican Nationalism: 1860-1896 (Lincoln era) The System of 1896: 1896-1932 (Republican dominance era) New Deal Liberalism: 1932-1980 (FDR = the New Deal Era) Reagan Revolution: 1980-now? (Reagan era) Critical elections (V. O. Key) 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1980, etc.

“Political Time” Presidency I (Skowronek) Stephen Skowronek’s theory “American Political Development” approach (American politics meets history) The notion of periodization or political cycle Repudiation of dichotomous approach putting the presidency in historical context, not just pre- modern/modern dichotomy repudiation of psychological approach Personality has not much bearings on who makes a good president, contrary to conventional wisdom. Instead, “political time” matters for presidential success or failure.

“Political Time” Presidency II (Skowronek) Stephen Skowronek’s focus on president’s relationship to 1) the nation’s dominant political regime and 2) the resources available to the presidency at that point in American history Politics presidents make (cyclical pattern)  Politics of Reconstruction  Articulation  Preemption  Disjunction  then, reconstruction again

“Political Time” Presidency (Stephen Skowronek)

A dominant ideological regime and each president’s association with it President’s own political identity (resources) Opposed Affiliated Regime strength Vulnerable Resilient 1. Politics of Reconstruction (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) 4. Politics of Disjunction (John Quincy Adams, Buchanan, Hoover, Carter) 3. Politics of Preemption (Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Nixon, Clinton) 2. Politics of Articulation (Monroe, Polk, TR, LBJ)

Political Times I Politics of Reconstruction Opposed to a weak regime Wins a big election that repudiates weak regime’s ideas (“critical election theory”) Mandate for change and wide leeway to control nation’s new agenda Jackson (the Jacksonian Democracy) FDR (the New Deal era) Reagan (the “center-right” country)

Political Times II Politics of Articulation (“faithful sons”) Affiliated with a resilient regime Sticking with dominant ideology of their party’s regime and carving out own policy niche Dealing with conflicting factions with a strong regime Polk (the Jacksonian Democracy) LBJ (the New Deal era) Bush 41 (center-right country)

Political Times III Politics of Preemption Opposed to a dominant regime Have to co-opt some of the dominant regime’s ideas and little legitimate authority to change policy commitments Andrew Johnson (vs. radical Republicans), Nixon (vs. liberal Democrats), Clinton (vs. conservative Republicans)

Political Times IV Politics of Disjunction Affiliated with a vulnerable regime Can’t stand up for regime that is no longer popular, also can’t criticize it because it’s his own party Less authority over national debate and tend to be seen as failures John Quincy Adams (prior to Jackson) Hoover (prior to FDR) Carter (prior to Reagan) Cf) What if McCain had won in 2008?

Obama and the “Political Time” Presidency How do you know about regime strength? Resilient vs. vulnerable? Is America still “center-right” country? Has the “Reagan Revolution” ended? Where is the Obama presidency placed? Where does President Obama stand? What is his affiliation with the dominant system? Does Obama belong to the politics of (second-round) preemption or reconstruction?