Success and Succession

[stoutfellow]

I'm still reading Skowronek, and I've just stumbled over a passage that has me a bit confused. I understand, I think, what the author is saying; I just don't see how he arrives at the conclusions he offers. I'd appreciate any thoughts or explanations from the better-informed. (This means you in particular, oilhistorian!) Details under the cut.

One of Skowronek's theses is that one of the major factors influencing the scope of action of a new president is whether he was elected in opposition or in affiliation to the existing regime. In the former case, the president is freer to make major changes, as he is in no way committed to the general acceptibility of the status quo. I find this plausible, but then Skowronek starts to flesh it out.

Opposition or affiliation points up some qualitative differences at work in the political dynamics of presidential leadership. Of the fourteen presidents who have been elected twice, only four - Madison, Monroe, Grant, and McKinley - were affiliated leaders¹. As Madison and Monroe predate the rise of a competitive party alternative and Grant gained reelection with a significant portion of his opposition under force of arms, there would seem to be even less to this list than first meets the eye. If we alter the question a bit, the facts are more striking still. The seven elected presidents who voluntarily withdrew from reelection campaigns were all affiliated leaders: Polk, Buchanan, Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson.

The footnote reads as follows:

The reelected presidents whom I am counting as opposition leaders are Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.

(This was written before Clinton's reelection.) Here's what puzzles me. I'll admit that the definition of opposition/affiliation may be more subtle than this, but the first approximation has to involve the party affiliations of the president and his immediate predecessor. Given that, first off, how is McKinley, a Republican, an affiliated leader? His immediate predecessor was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. (Is the fact that Cleveland had been repudiated by his own party at the 1896 convention, in favor of the populist wing led by Bryan, somehow relevant here?) Second, what of Polk? It's true that John Tyler, his immediate predecessor, was a Democrat, as was Polk, but he had been elected Vice-President (and thence ascended to the White House) on the Whig ticket. Polk's campaign platform, in any case, was an explicit repudiation of the Harrison/Tyler presidency, on - among other things - the issue of expansionism. (The annexation of Texas and the settling of the US/British border in the Pacific Northwest were major campaign issues.) If Tyler's being a Democrat is relevant, why isn't the same true of Andrew Johnson? A strong case could be made, I think, that Grant's election was a repudiation of Johnson's policies, if not of Lincoln's.

Can anyone make sense of this?