A survey of members of the American Political Science Associationâs Presidents and Executive Politics section conducted roughly a year after President Trump took office ranked him as the worst president in the nationâs history (Nussbaum 2018). Notably, this ranking placed Trump behind even James Buchananâthe chief executive whose quiescence in the face of significant controversy and lack of presidential leadership on the issue of slavery are often thought to have led directly to the outbreak of the American Civil War (Kwong 2018). Although the survey also asked respondents to grade presidents on several different dimensions (Guild 2018) in addition to providing a summary evaluation of each man (dimensions on which Trump also fared poorly according to the experts), ranking presidents has long been an endeavor fraught with difficulties (Nice 1984; Nichols 2012; Pfiffner 2003), not the least of which concerns the set of criteria upon which each chief administrator is to be judged (Pfiffner 2003) and the problems associated with making comparisons across vastly different time periods (Nice 1984). Nevertheless, such exercises can aid students of presidential leadership in identifying the criteria by which presidents ought to be judged (Pfiffner 2003).
Much the same might very well be said for early appraisals of presidents and their leadership undertaken while they still occupy the White House. And even though most would agree with Hilliard, Lansford and Watsonâs (2004) judgmentâleveled in their own inquiry into George W. Bush early in his administrationâthat âevaluating presidents is a compelling and an important exercise,â there is still significant disagreement within the scholarly community regarding not only how presidents should be evaluated but also when. Hindsight is often 20/20, and events that appeared to be of little import early in a particular presidency would later go on to define an entire administration. Greenstein (1983) notes that Trumanâs Fair Deal and Johnsonâs involvement in Vietnam would later characterize their respective periods in office, even as their import was not apparent while they were still serving as the nationâs chief executive. To this list one might add Clintonâs intimate involvement with a White House intern; although it was clear to all at the time that the scandal and resulting impeachment would almost certainly color later evaluations of his presidency, the public, for its part, seemed reluctant at the time to incorporate Clintonâs personal failings into their evaluation of his overall job performance (Zaller 1998). But Clintonâs ratings have declined in recent yearsâa drop that corresponds with the arrival of the â#MeTooâ movement (Andelic 2018). Similarly, decisions or actions that were praised at one point in time might very well be decried at a later date with the benefit of greater historical perspective (Nice 1984).
Why, then, embark upon such an early appraisal of a man who, at the time of this writing, is little over halfway through the term to which he was elected to serve? Political scientists and public administration scholars have engaged in such efforts since at least the Carter administration (Sundquist 1979; see also Burke 2009; Campbell and Rockman 1991, 1996; Greenstein 2003; Hilliard et al. 2004; Jacobson 2007; King and Riddlesperger 1996; Newland 1983).1 Few, however, have provided a rationale for assessing a president while he (or she) is still in office.
Greensteinâs (1983) early examination of President Reagan stands out as a notable exception to this general observation and is applicable to the inquiries detailed in the following pages. According to Greenstein, Reaganâs presidency was worthy of scholarly study âwhile under wayâ because it was both âuniqueâ and âextraordinaryâ (4). As scholars writing for this volume will attest, the very same reasoning applies to President Trump. If Reaganâs presidency was notable for its ideological undertones, however, Trumpâs is remarkable for his populist streak and what can only be described as a type of ideological flexibility, not to mention his willingness to break with convention and precedent on a host of other dimensions. Trumpâs presidency thus far has defied explanation, and theoretical work on presidential leadership would appear at first blush to offer little in the way of a guide for understanding his approach to the office. This fact alone recommends an early appraisal of the Trump presidency.
Moreover, if Greenstein (1983) is correct in his evaluation that the modern (postwar) presidents face an institutional environment that is qualitatively different from the administrations that came before the midpoint of the twentieth century (an assumption that Skowronek [1997] challenges), then the narrow database available to scholars of presidential politics almost certainly requires the academic community to learn about the presidency as history is unfolding in front of them. According to Greenstein, âScholars also need to produce âinstant historyâ of each modern presidency because many questions central to analysis of the presidency and of public policy are not addressed in normal media coverageâ (1983, 4). What Greenstein said of the Reagan administration over thirty years ago rings true to this day, in spite of the proliferation of media outlets covering national politics and the arrival of the twenty-four-hour news cycle. And even though there is currently no shortage of popular-press books covering the Trump presidency from every conceivable angle, from insider looks at Trumpâs administration from respected journalists (e.g., Woodward 2018), to polemics penned by political adversaries, including those within his own party (Wilson 2018), the present volume promises to number among the first scholarly assessments of the Trump presidency (see also Genovese 2017; Nelson 2018).
What political scientists and other academic observers of politics lack in speed, though, they often make up for in terms of perspective. The contributors to this volume, like those who have offered comment on previous presidents while they were still in office (see Campbell and Rockman 1991, 1996; Greenstein 1983, 2003; Hilliard et al. 2004), excel at connecting the goings-on in a particular administration with âhistorical and disciplinary perspectivesâ (Greenstein 1983, 3) in such a way so as to inform the general public and add depth to journalistic accounts that often frame contemporary events in episodic rather than thematic terms (Iyengar 1991). Students of presidential politics are well situated in this regard and âbring distinctive assets to bear, including analytic clarity, rigorous reasoning, sensitivity to complexity, and the ability to place new developments in a historical contextâ (Greenstein 2003, x).
That is not to say that journalists do not cover important elements of presidential politics; indeed, each of the chapters in this volume addresses an aspect of the Trump presidency that was touched upon in the media as they went about covering the events of the day. For instance, in Chap. 2 James Pfiffner puts Trumpâs âpeculiar relationship with the truthâ (Ghitis 2017) in context, while in Chap. 4 Jeffrey Crouch engages in some depth with the presidentâs clemency power, owing at least in part to recent speculation regarding whether Trump might pardon his personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen or former campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to buy their silence (Sheth and Haltiwanger 2019). In this chapterâs final section, we go into greater detail about the ground each chapter covers.
Early assessments of presidents, like this one, also help in starting conversations within the scholarly community about how administrations should be evaluated and provide a basis for future comparisons between presidents (see Hilliard et al. 2004). For, in spite of criticisms to the effect that research on the presidency is deficient from a theoretical standpoint (Hilliard et al. 2004, 2), there is a robust literature on presidential leadership that might serve as a guide to situate the Trump administration within a broader framework. We describe much of this work in the following section.
Presidential Leadership in Theory
American presidents are the nationâs leaders in foreign, military, and domestic policy. It is not surprising, then, that numerous scholars have sought to analyze and develop theories regarding presidential leadership, with varying degrees of success (also see, e.g., Cohen 2009; Kernell 2007). Neustadtâs famous theory of presidential leadership highlights the importance of the chief executiveâs ...