Balkinization: What Kind of President Will the Next President Be?

What Kind of President Will the Next President Be?

The question I'm asking here is not the question of individual characteristics, but their structural placement within the succession of Presidents. In his book, The Politics Presidents Make, Steve Skowronek of Yale's political science department offered a famous typology of Presidents based on the situations they find when they come into office, and the ways they respond to them through leadership. (Skowronek should not be blamed for the uses (or misuses) I make of his theory in what follows.)

Skowronek notes that some presidents are reconstructive presidents: they state new principles and encourage practices different from the constitutional order of the present (think Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan). They tear down the old order and begin the process of building a new one. Others presidents are affiliated: they extend, articulate, and consolidate the new order they have inherited. They are faithful sons of the reconstructive presidents. (Think Madison, Monroe, Van Buren, Polk, Grant, Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Bush I). Then there are preemptive or oppositional presidents, who take office in the face of a political order opposed to their political views and who must triangulate and accommodate (think Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton). Dominant forces try to take these presidents down, and scandal is often the most familiar technique. Finally, we have disjunctive presidents, whom we know in hindsight: they are the last affiliated presidents in a failing political order. The disjunctive president appears to create problems rather than solve them, and therefore is widely viewed as incompetent and ineffectual. (Think John Adams, J.Q. Adams, Pierce, Buchanan, Hoover, and Jimmy Carter.). Because of changed circumstances, disjunctive presidents cannot keep their coalitions together, hence they preside over the dissolution of the governing political and constitutional order and are usually followed by reconstructive presidents.

In addition to this cycle of reconstruction, affiliation, opposition and disjunction, Skowronek argues that each political order makes it more difficult for the next order to really revolutionize things. That means that Reagan, for example, could not change the basics of the regulatory and welfare state as easily as FDR could upset the assumptions of the Republican hegemony of the previous generation.

Now, here is another way to understand my previous post about George W. Bush as the Great Destroyer of the Reagan coalition. I am betting that if Reagan was a reconstructive president, then Bush I was an affiliated president, Bill Clinton was a oppositional president and George W. Bush is a disjunctive president. (In Skowronek's model, you don't always have one of each in consecutive order, and disjunctive presidents don't always follow oppositional presidents, but in this case you do).

Because of changing circumstances, Bush has found it impossible to keep all the various elements of his coalition happy; he has proliferated problems, and therefore he is viewed as incompetent. Bush II, however, is a special case because he got an enormous break from history: 9/11. The September 11th attacks offered him the possibility of becoming a reconstructive president, and starting a new political and constitutional order. When he won the 2004 election, that is precisely what many people on the left feared. However, Bush did not win by an enormous margin, he quickly lost control of Congress, and the Iraq War became very unpopular. If he had managed a quick and decisive victory in Iraq, he might well have succeeded, either becoming a reconstructive president in his own right, or becoming something like McKinley, who gave the Republican coalition a new breath of life that lasted for thirty some years. He would be remembered for having successfully set the terms of the new political order. At the moment the best he can probably do is become Harry Truman, that is, a successful faithful son (Reagan is to Bush II as FDR is to Truman). History changes our views of everything in hindsight, but right now the odds of his being regarded as a successful president don't look so good.

The problem for the Republicans is pretty obvious. What are the choices they have available? Bush's attempt at reconstruction failed. So they will probably try to present themselves as faithful sons of Reagan's legacy. The problem is that Bush has destroyed the coalition that goes with that legacy. Their best chance is that the eventual nominee might become McKinley, breathing new life into the old coalition (McCain has the best shot, perhaps, although he will almost certainly depart from Reaganism in a number of respects).

Democrats face a converse problem, and this gives you a clue to Hillary Clinton's unexpected success in New Hampshire. As long as Hillary ran as the candidate who would bring back the 90s, she was portraying her self as an oppositional president like her husband. That is, she would triangulate and accommodate the existing political order. Many Democrats didn't like that; they were sick of the existing limitations of politics, and although they wanted a Democrat in the White House, more of the same was at best a second choice for them. Obama, on the other hand, offered the possibility of a new post-Reagan political order; he advertised himself as an agent of change and refused to talk in the terms of the existing highly partisan debates. That is, he offered the possibility of a reconstructive Presidency like FDR or Reagan. This excited Democrats, who were uncertain if he could win or carry out his plans, but he was able to convince enough of them in Iowa to prevail. Clinton quickly realized that Democrats preferred someone who presented themselves as an agent of change rather than someone who would bring back the 1990s, and so she quickly and effectively co-opted Obama's message.

If I am right that George W. Bush is really a disjunctive president, then the correct strategy for Democrats is to run as if you are proposing a reconstruction of the political order. (Whether you can pull it off will be decided later, but remember, the chances of this are improved if the Congress stays Democratic and the Democrats increase their strength in the Senate. It's also worth noting that if Skorownek is correct that the next reconstruction will be hemmed in by the legacies of Reaganism and the New Deal, the next president, even if he or she is reconstructive, will have less room for maneuver than either Reagan or FDR, and much less than Jefferson, Jackson, or Lincoln.)

If all this is so, then Clinton, Obama and Edwards will likely converge on this strategy of presenting themselves as the candidate of reconstructive change, and even more strongly in the general election. Ideally, this would be the best strategy for Republicans too, but they face far more problems in pulling it off and so they will probably present themselves as inheritors of Reagan's mantle. That is unlikely to succeed, for the reasons I detailed in my previous post.

Posted 11:50 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

Professor Lederman:

Now, here is another way to understand my previous post about George W. Bush as the Great Destroyer of the Reagan coalition. I am betting that if Reagan was a reconstructive president, then Bush I was an affiliated president, Bill Clinton was a oppositional president and George W. Bush is a disjunctive president. (In Skowronek's model, you don't always have one of each in consecutive order, and disjunctive presidents don't always follow oppositional presidents, but in this case you do).

Does Professor Skowronek contemplate Presidents which are hybrids of his categories?

Reagan fits nicely as a reconstructive President.

However, allow me a radical thought as to the rest.

The Bushes are hybrids of affiliated and oppositional Presidents. There is no other way to explain how they continued parts of Reagan's conservatism, but each created new entitlements while 41 raised tax rates and 43 spent like a drunken Dem on domestic programs.

Mr. Clinton started out as an oppositional President. However, after the conservative realignment completed with the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, the poll following Mr. Clinton became Reagan's most affiliated President. The last six years of the Clinton domestic policy was easily as conservative as the Reagan term.

As much as you might like to think so, Bush 43 is hardly a disjunctive President. The Reagan coalition is not voting Dem and the Dems are not offering anything close to a reconstructive President stating new principles and encourage practices different from the constitutional order of the present. The fact that the elements of that coalition except for the hawks are unhappy with Mr. Bush's apostasies from Reagan conservatism and are looking for the next Reagan (not Obama) indicates that the coalition is alive and well.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:35 PM

"We are the makers of history, not its victims."
John McCain NH Victory Speech, 1/8/08

"They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history."
Phillip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle (describing the mindset of the Nazis)

I find this kind of creepy.

# posted by

dm : 1:49 PM

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:03 PM

To Skowronek's "diminishing room to maneuver" hypothesis, one has to ask: Assuming that the scope of government isn't infinite (whatever this "room to maneuver" metaphor really means), at what point will a putatively reconstructive presidency have nothing left to reconstruct?

That's the point where the system can no longer solve its problems. I think at that point you get either revolution or collapse/fade to insignificance.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:23 PM

... That's the point where the system can no longer solve its problems. ...

Which is the point we appear to be quickly approaching. God forbid this will lead to a revolution, crappy, ineffectual government is preferred under any circumstances.

---

The yearning for change is evident and obviously not very surprising given 7 years of this administration. I guess most of us got surprised by how massively incompetent, value-less, undemocratic, even corrupt they turned out to be.

There is also a strong sense that globally things will never be the same as it is almost certain now there will be no other "American Century", no matter how recklessly we'll throw our weight around in coming decades. It's economy stupid, not guns.

Domestically, things ain't too rosy either, apart from economy and social issues the country seems to be slowly going undemocratic, East Germany style with in-your-face government and its agents (TSA screeners, cops, tax collectors, judges, security people, etc) everywhere you look.

The chances that any future administration will be in position to significantly reverse those trends is basically zero, much bigger forces are at play, so political taxonomies of yore are probably inapplicable.

Personally I just hope for a little bit more enlightened leadership, little less in your face government, little less adventurism abroad, little more competency .

Both Clinton and Osama will be likely to provide it on some level, for true leadership, recreating the sense of possibilities and dynamism evident in Europe or Asia these days on these shores for example, I see little hope in Clinton (product of the existing system, mostly unable to see outside its confines), Osama is a total unknown.

# posted by

wg : 4:14 PM

Mr. depalma asks:

“Does Professor Skowronek contemplate Presidents which are hybrids of his categories?”

No Skowronek does not. And a quick explanation of why might be helpful. Skowronek creates his typology out of two dichotomies: A president is either affiliated or opposed to the dominant political party. Most, I suspect, will agree we have been living in a Republican era, and the Republican Party has been the dominant party since Reagan was elected (or, to make things more complicated, at least since the 1994 elections). The second dichotomy is whether a president runs for initial election at a time when the dominant coalition is vulnerable or robust. Thus, when J.F.K. was elected, the Democratic majority was still robust. When Carter was running for reelection it was vulnerable.

It is by combining these dichotomies that we get the relevant categories:

Reconstruction: opposed to previously dominant regime, at a time that regime is vulnerable (examples: Lincoln, FDR, Reagan)

Articulation: affiliated with dominant regime, at a time regime is robust (examples: Polk, Grant, TR, LBJ).

Opposition: opposed to dominant regime, at a time when regime is robust (examples: Woodrow Wilson, Eisenhower, Nixon).

Disjunction: affiliated with dominant regime, at time when regime is vulnerable (examples: Buchanan, Hoover, Carter).

Given this, it makes no sense WITHIN THIS SCHEME to make up hybrid categories, and it would make sense to do some study before critiquing it, or offering some alternative scheme.

That said, this scheme does help up to narrow the questions of dispute.

In this schema Bush can only practice articulation or disjunction, as he is affiliated with the Republican regime. The question is whether the regime is robust or not. Mr. depalma is convinced it is. And I guess time will tell, though I personally suspect it is at least somewhat vulnerable. We will have to see whether we are merely at a midlife crisis, or whether the Republicans have followed policies beyond what the public will bear (Iraq War, Domestic Spying, Enhanced Interrogation, Tax cuts primarily for the wealthiest). Past disjunctive presidents have presided over disasters: Civil War disintegration, Great Depression . . . although such was not the case in 1828, which was about mass participation as much as anything else.

The question then is how disastrous have the Bush policies been? And how upset are American citizens with these policies? I would simply note that the high voter turnouts so far are likely a sign of significant disaffection. How those will be harnessed, again, remains to be seen.

A final point about vulnerability. The Republican and conservative machines, which includes media, think tanks, radio personalities, and even active bloggers like Mr. depalma are not likely to go away. They are a sign of robustness. Whether the Republican coalition will nonetheless split, and peel off at the margins to a Democratic coalition is a key point to consider. It would thus negating aforesaid strengths of the Republican machine. In any case, the political machines are emblematic of the “thicker” environment of politics in the contemporary era, according to Skowronek, will delimit the opportunities for success of any reconstruction.

# posted by

Chausovsky : 6:49 PM

This morning, I posted:

The fact that the elements of that coalition except for the hawks are unhappy with Mr. Bush's apostasies from Reagan conservatism and are looking for the next Reagan (not Obama) indicates that the coalition is alive and well.

The CNN GOP exit polls in NH yesterday provides some detail for this proposition.

When asked their feelings about the Bush Administration, 34% of GOP primary voters were dissatisfied while 15% were outright angry.

Why?

Well, when compared to Mr. Bush, 52% of GOP primary voters want the next President to be more conservative.

This is unsurprising since 55% of GOP primary voters self identify as conservative.

The idea that Mr. Bush pushed the GOP further right was always absurd. Apart from taxes and the war, the GOP coalition is pissed that Mr. Bush has been governing too much like a Democrat.

Finally, the CNN Dem exit polls in NH yesterday indicated that 97% of Dem primary voters self identified as Dems or Independents and only 3% were GOP crossover voters, which is about the same as the 2% of GOP primary voters who self identified as Dems. Consequently, there is no evidence of a fragmentation of the GOP coalition whose defectors are now voting Dem.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:11 PM

chausovsky said...

Mr. depalma asks: “Does Professor Skowronek contemplate Presidents which are hybrids of his categories?”

No Skowronek does not. And a quick explanation of why might be helpful...

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Defining articulation and opposition simply as partisan affiliation rather than actual alignment of governance explains the lack of hybrid categories, but is not particularly useful in explaining Presidents like Nixon (whose exponential expansion of government and attempt to manage the economy were solidly left) and Clinton (whose last six years were at least as conservative as Reagan and more conservative than the Bush bookend administrations).

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:22 PM

Defining articulation and opposition simply as partisan affiliation rather than actual alignment of governance explains the lack of hybrid categories

And defining articulation and oppostion solely in terms of levels of domestic spending grossly oversimplies. For starters, Ronald Reagan never cut domestic spending anywhere near as much as he or like-minded people might have wished.

Then consider categories other than domestic spending. Reagan cut income taxes, especially on the top rates, though he later partially backed away from his anti-tax position by agreeing to increases in Social Security and cigaret taxes. Clinton raised taxes on the top rates (though not so high as they were before Reagan) and never backed away from that. GWB cut taxes on the top rates and has refused to raise any taxes ever since.

Reagan courted Evangelicals, though he never gave them much more than empty platitudes. Clinton outraged Evangelicals with his philandering and his push for gays in the military. GWB has the full support of Evangelicals who see him as one of their own. (Though how much he has given them of substance is debatable).

And on foreign policy Bush's attitude of "we don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it" marks him not so much as the heir to Reagan as a caricature.

That last point raises in interesting question. Is it a sign that Presidents are becoming "disjunctive" when they start looking like caricatures of ones who went before?

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 12:51 AM

It seems awfully soon to have a reconstructive president: they don't usually come within 30 years of the previous one. Therefore, I predict we will have either an affiliated president (if the Republicans win) or a disjunctive one (and if it's Hillary, I suspect there will be more than enough material for scandal available).

Meanwhile, I suspect Bush will be remembered like Truman, an affiliated president who was very unpopular. I haven't read Skowronek's book, and I wonder if he explains why some affiliated presidents (Truman being the obvious example) become so unpopular.

# posted by

sean : 8:31 AM

el:

No modern President has actually cut domestic spending. Reagan and then Clinton/Gingrich merely slowed down the growth of domestic spending so that the growth of the economy surpassed it and spending fell as a percentage of GDP.

As for taxes, Reagan cut marginal income taxes twice and cut them across the board, not just for the rich. The 81 tax reforms were 25% across the board. Then the 87 tax reforms dropped them further to 28 and 14%. Clinton slightluy increased tax rates for the middle class and up. Bush slightly decreased tax rates, mostly for families with children and married couples.

Clinton came into his own as a Reagan affiliate by eliminating the welfare entitlement and by finishing the Reagan free trade project.

The Bushes proved themselves to be oppositional to the Reagan philosophy by creating new entitlements and increasing spending.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:35 AM

Bart writes:
Defining articulation and opposition simply as partisan affiliation rather than actual alignment of governance

This implies you have your own exclusive topology in mind. Do you? If so, what kind of cycle and trends does your topology construct and follow?

# posted by

John : 2:48 PM

bitswapper said...

Bart writes: Defining articulation and opposition simply as partisan affiliation rather than actual alignment of governance

This implies you have your own exclusive topology in mind. Do you? If so, what kind of cycle and trends does your topology construct and follow?

Not really. I just believe that party identification does not mean much. What matters is how a President governs, not the little letter besides his or her name.

Steve Skowronek's theory would become more sound if it measured ideology rather than mere partisan identification. Each age has its own dominant paradigm of governance. There are Presidents who change the paradigm, those who follow the paradigm, those who oppose the paradigm and those who weaken it.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:43 PM

Factual correction:

Clinton slightluy[sic] increased tax rates for the middle class and up.

Based on the OMB data and the tax rates from the 1993 Clinton Tax increase:

Average income by percentiles show that the 36 and 39.6% tax rates would only kick in as follows:

Married filing joint: 91-95% (avg income $129.016) tax starts at $140,000
Head of household: same percentile (tax starts at $127,500)
Unmarried: 81-90% (avg income $100,107) tax starts at $115,000
Married filing separately: 61-80% (avg income $73,400) tax starts at $70,000

If one logically believes that the middle class consists of the middle of the income spectrum (41-60%), then the Clinton tax hikes (creating new, higher tax rates for high income earners) in no way impacted the middle class. Remember, the numbers in the OMB report are in 2005 dollars, with several years of inflation and economic growth factored in, so the actual incomes from '93 would be much smaller.

To correct the statement to reflect the facts: Clinton slightly increased tax rates for the upper class, leaving rates unchanged for the middle class.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 12:50 AM

fraud guy:

In the high cost blue metro areas around the country, you will find that folks who make up to $200K believe they are middle class because of the insane cost of living in these areas.

What was amusing is that Clinton primarily raised taxes on his own Dem voters.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:31 AM

Bart writes:
What was amusing is that Clinton primarily raised taxes on his own Dem voters.

Just curious as to where you found that. I mean, my tax forms don't ask me to declare party affiliation or voting records.

# posted by

John : 11:40 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:36 PM

bitswapper said...

Bart writes: What was amusing is that Clinton primarily raised taxes on his own Dem voters.

Just curious as to where you found that. I mean, my tax forms don't ask me to declare party affiliation or voting records.

I wrote a piece called the Rich Man's Blues - How The Dems Became The Party Of The Rich discussing recent research indicating that the Dems primarily reside in high income and high cost metropolitan areas and that the wealthiest House districts disproportionately vote Dem. You will find links to the research there.

The Dems' recent concern in stopping the AMT from absorbing more upper middle class voters stems from the fact that the upper middle class making high salaries has become a major Dem constituency.

I laugh when the Dems use the tired rhetoric that the GOP is the party of the rich when so many of their own voters range from the upper middle class in the cities to the nouveau plutocrats like Soros, Buffet, Jobs and Oprah.

I think the parties are becoming more defined by where their voters live - urban/close suburb (Dem) v. exurb/rural (GOP) - than their incomes.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:39 PM

In the high cost blue metro areas around the country, you will find that folks who make up to $200K believe they are middle class because of the insane cost of living in these areas.

What was amusing is that Clinton primarily raised taxes on his own Dem voters.

But who is voting blue in those areas? The upscale $200K annual earner, or the $20-40K service employees who outnumber them about 10-1?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I live in a high cost suburban area, and it ain't blue in my county, or any of the several nearby counties. Most elections, the Democrats don't even run opposition for most offices.

Back to on topic, accurate posters:

That's the point where the system can no longer solve its problems. I think at that point you get either revolution or collapse/fade to insignificance.

Wasn't it Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty needs to be renewed every generation with the blood of patriots?

In this schema Bush can only practice articulation or disjunction, as he is affiliated with the Republican regime. The question is whether the regime is robust or not.

I think that the followup of Reagan as a reconstructive president is that, in many cases (especially in the current Democratic legislative leadership), there is actually little practical difference in the parties with regards to their desire to cater to their corporate donors. A true reconstructive president at this point would need to create a change in the power structure in Washington that rewards lobbying and donors to a citizen-centric government. Until that happens, we will have a series of disjunctive (usually) and affiliated (rarely) presidents until we collapse under our own accreted detritus.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 9:43 PM

fraud guy said...

BD:In the high cost blue metro areas around the country, you will find that folks who make up to $200K believe they are middle class because of the insane cost of living in these areas. What was amusing is that Clinton primarily raised taxes on his own Dem voters.

But who is voting blue in those areas? The upscale $200K annual earner, or the $20-40K service employees who outnumber them about 10-1?

Both. That is what is so fascinating about the emerging demographics.

Our large blue megalopolises are actually hollowing out as the middle class flees the high cost of living there, leaving a disproportionate number of high and low earners. Dems get votes from both ends and dominate these areas.

In contrast, the research i cited notes that most conservative GOP House members are elected from middle class areas.

This demography places the old class warfare model on its head. The parties seem to be realigning culturally rather than along income lines with the Dems representing urban areas and the GOP everywhere else.

Fascinating stuff.

I live in a high cost suburban area, and it ain't blue in my county, or any of the several nearby counties. Most elections, the Democrats don't even run opposition for most offices.

The suburbs are the geographical intersection between the geographical areas dominated by each party. They can go either way.

Where do you live if you do not mind me asking?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:13 PM

OT:

DuPage County, Illinois.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 9:30 PM

The trend of republican support coming from middle class income areas is quite interesting. It could very well be a precursor of republican support swinging away from wealthy interests and toward middle class interests - one could only hope

However, since the money is still with the wealthy and it takes more money than ever to win an election, I'm not so sure that will happen. I don't really expect it from democrats either. It doesn't seem like the average income of the groups a particular party claims to represent is very telling of the interests that party actually acts in support of.

Regardless of who they say they support, I don't see any indication that the reaganism machine is really dead in terms of its legacy influence just yet or even that republicans will ever stop racking up debt like a kid in a toystore with a credit card. I mean, if just that part of reaganism could be jettisoned it would be an encouraging thing.

# posted by

John : 10:42 AM

The real problem with Skowronek's viewpoint is the lack of human agency. In venerating a pattern (of which people argue where certain Presidents fit) and in arguing that the prior reconstructive presidents set the "room to maneuver" for the next, he loses out on a lot of human agency.

# posted by

Michael : 11:32 AM

# posted by

Unknown : 12:29 PM