Reagan Reorders the Political Regime: A Historical–Institutional Approach to Analysis of Change

Abstract

The future of reconstructive presidential leadership is in question. It is increasingly difficult to tear out and replace institutions in today's constraining environment. However, historical-institutional theory suggests that alternative leadership possibilities exist. A reconstructive president may be able to reorder the political regime through application of a multiple modalities of change strategy. This project explores this prospect through study of Ronald Reagan's accomplishments in the budget battles of 1981. It applies a new analytic approach to determine if his well-known successes can be translated into the historicalinstitutional conceptual framework. It confirms that previously hypothesized leadership possibilities exist and demonstrates the utility of the new analytic approach to the study of institutional change. Pros and cons of modern reconstructive leadership are illuminated and the new change-framework is recommended for broader application in presidential studies. The Reconstructive ConundrumThe continued viability of reconstructive presidential leadership is in doubt. It has become progressively harder for even contextually well-placed presidents to employ the order shattering and order creating style of leadership historically associated with reconstructive presidents (Balkin 2014;Skowronek 1997). This recent development is an artifact of the welfare state and the general thickening of the institutional environment that trails in its wake. These impediments have already hindered the reconstructive president's ability to respond to enervated conditions. Debate still rages, but according to

Broadening the limits of reconstructive leadership: Constructivist elements of Viktor Orbán’s regime-building politics

“…By getting a 'quasi-superweapon' (parliamentary supermajority) to eliminate almost any of the opposing institutions (except for the supranational players mentioned), Orbán did not face strong veto players that would have opposed the changes he had initiated. Therefore, in the Hungarian context a more voluntaristic reconstructive leadership could be realised than in the American context (Laing, 2012;Nichols, 2014Nichols, , 2015.…”

Donald Trump and Institutional Change Strategies

“…It then requires them to come up with a strategy based on that context. As the descriptors of the strategies indicate-subversive, insurrectionary, opportunistic, and symbiotic-change pathways need not always be ethical (Nichols 2014(Nichols , 2015. Though this article focuses on how, when, and where, we close with another question.…”

“…A prime example is Ronald Reagan's 1981 strategy to exact spending cuts from Congress (Nichols 2015). After witnessing 50 years of Republicans losing policy debates and elections on balanced budget planks, Reagan adopted a strategy of layering tax cuts on top of mandatory outlays.…”

Measuring Partisan Regimes: Elites Tell Us Who Their Reconstructives Are

“…For comparability, the ratings scores on these four surveys were converted to a scale from 0 to 100. I am indebted to Dr. Curt Nichols for sharing data from his own study of presidential greatness (Nichols 2012).…”

“…It can also be difficult to know whether any president has truly succeeded in destroying or weakening the institutions associated with a previous regime, when Skowronek's precise definition of a regime is unclear to many (Pious , 172; Hoekstra , 662; Gerring ). Theorists in what Nichols () has termed the second wave of regime scholarship debate, for instance, what it would mean to say that Reagan successfully subverted any of FDR's New Deal or whether William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt (TR) also made institutional changes worthy of the reconstructive title (Nichols and Myers ).…”