-
CHAPTER 9: Implications for Leadership and the Public Presidency
- Texas A&M University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
CHAPTER 9 Implications for Leadership and the Public Presidency As observers and scholars of presidential history, we are obsessed with ranking the presidents who are thought to be the “best leaders.” Early attempts (such as Arthur M. Schlesinger’s survey of historians in ) and more recent attempts (such as James Taranto and Leonard Leo’s Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House) address the puzzle of presidential leadership from multiple perspectives but without a consensus on the criteria used for evaluation. Routinely, Presidents (Franklin) Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan come out on top while, typically, Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter hover around the bottom. These rankings are traditionally based on reputation, perceived presidential “skill,” success in the policy arena, and ability to handle the various crises facing each president. Rankings like these supply magnificent evidence for a spirited debate about the effectiveness of presidents, comprising the interaction of political forces with presidential political acumen and qualities that make strong leaders. Methodologically, these rankings also provoke a reasonable debate about how presidential leadership is measured (especially in reference to presidential “greatness”). However, it is difficult to assess presidential leadership from select cases because information may be stressed that is thought to be important for evaluation (when it potentially is not) or information may be missing that is important for appraisal. Scholars also tend to assume that presidential moments of successful leadership are self-induced and transcend the peculiar moments of economic, international , or political circumstances. Too much faith is put in these moments as “revealers” of presidential greatness when presidents simply happened to be serving at a fortuitous moment in time for enhancing leadership. The moments, issues, or events that scholars select as vehicles to examine presidential leadership success or failure come with methodological trade-offs—a kind of empirical “zero sum” game where Implications for Leadership and the Public Presidency : 191 only selected moments of presidential history, White House policy, or presidential actions are examined and from which presidential leadership is generalized. Such studies also presume that one can understand when presidents should have led, often without verification of that elusive fact. In this concluding chapter, I review the evidence presented in this book to assess what this study has contributed to the literature on the public presidency and the role of presidents as leaders of public opinion. Of course, this analysis presumes that presidents desire to lead mass public opinion to further their policy goals when other rhetorical goals may take priority in certain instances, including leading individual groups, directly influencing Congress with their rhetoric, neutralizing critics of the administration ’s policies, or exploiting other opportunities presented by a broad confluence of political forces. The analysis from this book does not precludetheseexplanationsbutrathertakesasitscentralgoaltoofferempirical evidence for when presidents are likely to temporarily lead public opinion and which tactics are most effective. Understanding these political, social, and economic contexts more clearly, we can begin to paint a clearer picture of the constraints presidents face when leading public opinion as well as the opportunities for leadership not previously found in the literature. The literature on the subject of presidential leadership has produced several contradictory theories along with concurrent empirical variation. Some scholars claim presidential leadership can be achieved by effective presidents; some claim it is an illusion. Other scholars claim leadership of opinion is central to and present in presidential political success; others dispute this claim. In this book I seek to use the data to resolve these differences and add to an understanding of how and under what conditions presidents lead public opinion. The findings here support and complement several theories in the literature. However, these findings also challenge several existing findings or recast assumptions pertaining to presidential behavior regarding public opinion. Although this book will not be the final word on the subject (given the myriad of ways in which scholars might define leadership of public opinion), it has gotten us closer to a more refined understanding of the moments where presidents succeed at leading public opinion. Refining Our Understanding of Presidential Leadership Absent the power to command, the president’s power to compel may be the most significant tool in the White House’s arsenal of persuasive tech- [44.222.231.51] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 12:07 GMT) 192 : CHAPTER 9 niques. Leadership of public opinion is a time-honored tradition for the White House, dating back to the early days of the presidency and maturing in the age of polls, and this type of...