"The Politics Presidents Make"

[stoutfellow]

I'm currently reading The Politics Presidents Make, by Steven Skowronek. I'm finding the prose a little difficult; I think that's mostly a matter of unfamiliarity with the jargon and rhetorical conventions of the field, though. Despite this, it seems quite interesting. I've put a couple of quotes from the early going under the cut.

[Name] was a failure; yet, his story is instructive. The problem was not that he lacked the power or inclination to do great things, but that he completely lost control over the meaning of what he did. His authority as a political leader collapsed in the exercise of his powers. Presidential history is littered with stories like this. As a rule, power has been less of a problem for presidents than authority; getting things done, less of a problem than sustaining warrants for actions taken and for accomplishments realized.

(I note in passing that the book was first published in 1993 and revised in 1997. Name is, as it happens, Franklin Pierce.)

The presidency is an order-shattering institution in that it prompts each incumbent to take charge of the independent powers of his office and to exercise them in his own right. It is an order-affirming institution in that the disruptive effects of the exercise of presidential power must be justified in constitutional terms broadly construed as the protection, preservation, and defense of values emblematic of the body politic. It is an order-creating institution in that it prompts each incumbent to use his powers to construct some new political arrangements that can stand the test of legitimacy within the other institutions of government as well as the nation at large.

Anyone else think of Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma while reading that passage? (My knowledge of Hindu theology barely deserves the adjective "sketchy", but that particular set of archetypes is a useful one, I think.)

I may say more about the book after I've gotten deeper into it, but in any case I'm enjoying it so far.

Comments

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

From Skowronek:

The presidency is an order-shattering institution in that it prompts each incumbent to take charge of the independent powers of his office and to exercise them in his own right. It is an order-affirming institution in that the disruptive effects of the exercise of presidential power must be justified in constitutional terms broadly construed as the protection, preservation, and defense of values emblematic of the body politic. It is an order-creating institution in that it prompts each incumbent to use his powers to construct some new political arrangements that can stand the test of legitimacy within the other institutions of government as well as the nation at large.

What Skowronek appears to be saying is that a president's relation with precedent tends to have three effects.

1. A president who chooses to depart from prior practices may break with precedent because of the broad powers of the office.

2. A departure, however, must be within the arguable constitutional and traditional range of the president's powers and the traditions of the presidency.

3. The president may create precedents by his actions. These are subject to both the legal test of limitations under the constitution and positive law and the political test of whether Congress or the general public will accept the precedents.

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understood that. What intrigued me about the passage was the way the categorization slots neatly into the destruction/preservation/creation paradigm.