1. 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

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

4. “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.

5. “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

6. “Political Time” Presidency (Stephen Skowronek)

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. 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?

12. 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?