Rethinking The Presidency

In The Rhetorical Presidency, Jeffrey Tulis argues that the president’s relationship to the public has changed dramatically since the Constitution was enacted: while previously the president avoided any discussions of public policy so as to avoid demagoguery, the president is now expected to go directly to the public, using all the tools of rhetoric to influence public policy. This has effectively created a "second" Constitution that has been layered over, and in part contradicts, the original one. In our volume, scholars from different subfields of political science extend Tulis’s perspective to the judiciary and Congress; locate the origins of the constitutional change in the Progressive Era; highlight the role of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and the mass media in transforming the presidency; discuss the nature of demagoguery and whether, in fact, rhetoric is undesirable; and relate the rhetorical presidency to the public’s ignorance of the workings of a government more complex than the Founders imagined. This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

The study of the American presidency, both as a political institution and the men who have held the office, is one of the most fascinating and dynamic fields of study within American government. New Directions in the American Presidency takes a current look at the various issues facing the presidency and provides a "state of the art" overview of current trends in the field of presidency research. This edited volume covers all of the standard topics necessary for use in an undergraduate-level presidency course or a graduate-level seminar while also bringing together key disciplinary debates and treatment of important current real-world developments. Each chapter is written with students in mind so that it remains accessible, interesting, and engaging and does not inundate readers with pedantic or jargonistic terms. This will undoubtedly become a key resource to engage students in the exciting debates over scholarship on presidential politics.

The first book to explore the tension between presidents and federal agencies from the perspective of careerists in the executive branch. Winner of the Herbert A. Simon Book Award of the American Political Science Association Why do presidents face so many seemingly avoidable bureaucratic conflicts? And why do these clashes usually intensify toward the end of presidential administrations, when a commander-in-chief’s administrative goals tend to be more explicit and better aligned with their appointed leadership’s prerogatives? In Rethinking the Administrative Presidency, William G. Resh considers these complicated questions from an empirical perspective. Relying on data drawn from surveys and interviews, Resh rigorously analyzes the argument that presidents typically start from a premise of distrust when they attempt to control federal agencies. Focusing specifically on the George W. Bush administration, Resh explains how a lack of trust can lead to harmful agency failure. He explores the extent to which the Bush administration was able to increase the reliability—and reduce the cost—of information to achieve its policy goals through administrative means during its second term. Arguing that President Bush's use of the administrative presidency hindered trust between appointees and career executives to deter knowledge sharing throughout respective agencies, Resh also demonstrates that functional relationships between careerists and appointees help to advance robust policy. He employs a “joists vs. jigsaws” metaphor to stress his main point: that mutual support based on optimistic trust is a more effective managerial strategy than fragmentation founded on unsubstantiated distrust.

This work provides a concise, authoritative, and illuminating overview of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. This reference work surveys and explains all aspects of the Presidency, including the Founding Fathers' conception of the position, the evolution of the specific powers and responsibilities residing in the Oval Office over time, the relationship between the executive branch and the other two branches of the federal government, and the evolution of presidential election campaigns in U.S. history. It also discusses major historical events and controversies surrounding the Presidency and explains how the party affiliation of the president often colors White House priorities, policies, and attitudes of governance. This book is part of ABC-CLIO's Student Guides to American Government and Politics series. Each volume in the series provides an accessible and authoritative introduction to a distinct component of American governmental institutions and processes and shows how it pertains to America's current political climate and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

A new approach to a favorite pastime--rating the presidents--breaks presidential performance into easily understandable categories and assesses the best and worst.

In a period of American history marked by congressional primacy, presidential passivity, and hostility to governmental action, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson became iconic presidents through activist leadership. Peri Arnold, a leading presidential scholar, goes beyond the biographers to explain what really set Roosevelt apart from his predecessor William McKinley, how Wilson differed from his successor Warren G. Harding, and how we might better understand the forgettable William Howard Taft in between. This is the first comparative study of the three Progressive Era presidents, examining the context in which they served, the evolving institutional role of the presidency, and the personal characteristics of each man. Arnold explains why Roosevelt and Wilson pursued activist roles, how they gained the means for effective leadership in a role that had not previously supported it, and how each of the three negotiated the choppy crosscurrents of changing institutions and politics with entirely different outcomes. Arnold delineates the American political scene at the turn of the twentieth century, one characterized by a weakening of party organizations, the rise of interest groups and print media, and increasing demands for reform. He shows how the Progressive Era presidents marked a transition from the nineteenth century's checks and balances to the twentieth's expansive presidential role, even though demands for executive leadership were at odds with the presidency's means to take independent action. Each of these presidents was uniquely challenged to experiment with the office's new potential for political independence from party and Congress, and Arnold explains how each had to justify their authority for such experimentation. He also shows how their actions were reflected in specific policy case studies: the Northern Trust and naval modernization under Roosevelt, tariff reform and the Pinchot/Ballinger debate over conservation under Taft, and the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission under Wilson. Ultimately, Arnold shows how the period's ferment affected both the presidency and its incumbents and how they in turn affected progressive politics. More important, he helps us better understand two presidents who continue to inspire politicians of differing stripes and relates their leadership styles to the modern development of the presidency.

From the political rumour mill to pop culture, all signs suggest that the United States is finally ready for a woman in the White House. This text offers a critical assessment of the inroads made by female candidates into the previously male bastion of electoral success.

Attributes the failure of the modern presidency to the development of a political system that inherently impedes creative leadership, and offers prescriptive measures to restore the governing capacity of the president. This book explores the failure of the modern American presidency, a failure the author attributes to the development of a political system that impedes creative leadership. The American presidency, Gary L. Rose argues, is under siege. Surrounded and blockaded by a reactionary Congress, an entrenched bureaucracy, an aggressive media, lobbyists, political action committees, and special interest groups, American presidents fail not because of a lack of ability or character but because of the political system and style of politics inside the Beltway. Rose ascribes this emergence of a political system that obstructs presidential leadership to the decline of political parties as electoral and governing mechanisms. As political parties have declined, presidents have lost vital political connections that historically have enhanced their capacity to lead. He presents a variety of prescriptive measures, including political-party and legal reform, that have the potential to restore political parties and the governing capacity of the presidency. "This book fills an important gap in the literature on both the presidency and parties. The most original and provocative parts of the book concern the author's proposals for reforming the national conventions in order to revitalize them as decision-making, federal bodies, and thus to simultaneously de-emphasize the role of candidate-centered, party weakening primaries. Also, I am intrigued by the fact that Rose elaborates on the roleof patronage in party-building and explores patronage reform for the purpose of both strengthening the parties and helping presidents govern more effectively". -- Sean J. Savage, Saint Mary's College "The unique quality of this book is the manner in which it presents the problems of the presidency and the exciting manner in which it chooses among the various reforms presented. The result is a very readable and stimulating book on the presidency. It will take its place with Cronin's The State of the Presidency and Rethinking the Presidency as an important work in presidential studies, but it will stand alone because of its critical and prescriptive character". -- Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College

The first book to explore the tension between U.S. presidents and federal agencies from the perspective of careerists in the executive branch. Why do presidents face so many seemingly avoidable bureaucratic conflicts? And why do these clashes usually intensify toward the end of presidential administrations, when a commander-in-chief’s administrative goals tend to be more explicit and better aligned with their appointed leadership’s prerogatives? In Rethinking the Administrative Presidency, William G. Resh considers these complicated questions from an empirical perspective. Relying on data drawn from surveys and interviews, Resh rigorously analyzes the argument that presidents typically start from a premise of distrust when they attempt to control federal agencies. Focusing specifically on the George W. Bush administration, Resh explains how a lack of trust can lead to harmful agency failure. He explores the extent to which the Bush administration was able to increase the reliability—and reduce the cost—of information to achieve its policy goals through administrative means during its second term. Arguing that President Bush’s use of the administrative presidency hindered trust between appointees and career executives to deter knowledge sharing throughout respective agencies, Resh also demonstrates that functional relationships between careerists and appointees help to advance robust policy. He employs a “joists vs. jigsaws” metaphor to stress his main point: that mutual support based on optimistic trust is a more effective managerial strategy than fragmentation founded on unsubstantiated distrust. “An original and valuable book that extends the literature on the administrative presidency. A must-read.” —Hal G. Rainey, The University of Georgia, author of Understanding and Managing Public Organizations