• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The "Modern Presidency" vs the "Partisan Presidency": Article

Kephalos

J.M.P.P. R.I.P. B5: RLOAI
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
690
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
Richard M. Skinner, "Barack Obama and the Partisan Presidency: four more years?." Society 49, no. 5 (2012): 423-429. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-012-9577-1
Most scholars of the presidency agree that a distinctive “modern presidency” emerged in the first half of the 20th century, first under Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, then, most fully, under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Generally speaking, the heyday of the “modern presidency” (roughly from the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt through those of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon) saw political parties in decline, in the electorate, in government, and as organizations.

The past quarter century has seen a reversal of the trend toward weaker relationships between presidents and their parties. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, recent presidents have increasingly relied upon their parties for support both in the electorate and in the Congress. They have presented a more distinctively partisan image to voters and have found it difficult to cultivate support from the opposition. They have sought to lead their parties, using the national committees to garner support for their policies, campaigning extensively for their parties’ candidates, and even seeking to mold their parties’ futures.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,606
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I believe it was easier to "meet in the aisle" when each party contained multiple distinct ideological blocs. For instance, there were conservative and progressives among both of the major two parties, so elected officials aligned less on party lines--it wasn't uncommon for a conservative democrat to side with conservative republicans, a progressive republican with progressive democrats, and so on. Both parties have solidified around almost singular worldviews, making compromise within and without said parties next to impossible, while also negating the need for across-the-aisle partnerships.

No surprise then that Presidents have become more beholden to their respective parties' whims and platforms.
 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
15,923
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
I believe it was easier to "meet in the aisle" when each party contained multiple distinct ideological blocs. For instance, there were conservative and progressives among both of the major two parties, so elected officials aligned less on party lines--it wasn't uncommon for a conservative democrat to side with conservative republicans, a progressive republican with progressive democrats, and so on. Both parties have solidified around almost singular worldviews, making compromise within and without said parties next to impossible, while also negating the need for across-the-aisle partnerships.

No surprise then that Presidents have become more beholden to their respective parties' whims and platforms.
It doesn't help that House reps are basically cold calling for $$ several hours out of the day. Doesn't matter which party, it's mandated by the DCCC and the NRCC to raise X amount of $$ depending on the committee you're on. This has amped up since Citizen United in 2010. And it's very true what you said regarding progressives and conservatives in each party. I still think there are conservative Dems, there are no progressive Republicans and this has been the case since maybe the Newt Gingrich days.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,606
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It doesn't help that House reps are basically cold calling for $$ several hours out of the day. Doesn't matter which party, it's mandated by the DCCC and the NRCC to raise X amount of $$ depending on the committee you're on. This has amped up since Citizen United in 2010. And it's very true what you said regarding progressives and conservatives in each party. I still think there are conservative Dems, there are no progressive Republicans and this has been the case since maybe the Newt Gingrich days.
Yeah the Dems are more diverse in their views for sure. It’s shameful what the GOP has done to alienate more moderate people like Crist
 
Top