The Impossible Leadership Situation? Analyzing Success for Disjunctive Presidents

Abstract

This article argues that the way we understand presidential success should be different for presidents in different contexts. It provides the first deeper exploration of success for Skowronek's "disjunctive" presidents and finds that, particularly when these presidents engage in policy experimentation, they can play an important role in preparing the way for a later reconstruction. Although the presidents of disjunction are particularly constrained, they are capable of success as long as we judge them realistically and acknowledge that they may receive little credit for their concrete achievements. We illustrate this contention through the presidencies of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, which exemplify the degrees of success available within the constraints of a faltering partisan regime.

The economic drivers of political time

“…However, the most promising Reconstructive, Williams Jennings Bryan, and his new commitments were seen as "crazy and positively dangerous," and not inclusive enough, by too many American elites, interest groups, and voters. 26 This allowed an Articulator, William McKinley, to win office (Laing & McCaffrie, 2017). So it may be that reconstruction requires an economic crisis and a political champion who is trusted by enough voters, elites, and interest groups to include them in the new regime.…”

Evaluating British prime ministerial performance: David Cameron’s premiership in political time

“…Jimmy Carter is portrayed as more successful than Franklin Pierce in navigating the constraints of the disjunctive presidency, for example. However, it has been left to Laing and McCaffrie (2015) to develop a framework for more systematic evaluation of disjunctive presidents. First, their personal success in attaining policy goals, personal popularity and re-election can be assessed.…”

“…However, it has been left to Laing and McCaffrie (2015) to develop a framework for more systematic evaluation of disjunctive presidents. Firstly, their personal success in attaining policy goals, personal popularity and, re-election can be assessed.…”

The biggest losers: Legacy, exigence, and apologia in presidential farewell addresses

“…Faber and Faber (2000) rank all of them in the bottom half of all their categories, with Pierce finishing especially poorly. Laing and McCaffrie (2017) include all three in their list of disjunctive presidents who lacked authority because of their perceived ineptitude. In fact, analysts from across the political spectrum have struggled to articulate a positive vision of their administrations in any arena.…”

“…Take Hoover, for instance; Clements (2000), Whyte (2017), and Chavez (2021) note Hoover's successes in infrastructure and disaster relief, the development of the Office of Education and National Institute of Health, his efforts to improve opportunities for Native Americans, and the impact of Hoover's Good Neighbor policy on Latin America as evidence of his importance. As such, Laing and McCaffrie (2017) make a strong argument that revising the methodology for reviewing problematic presidential legacies puts at least two of these subjects in a much more positive light. However, the rankings cited here reflect these presidents' places in the popular historical milieu.…”