This study provides critical analysis of ranking surveys, leading to regression analysis that provides fresh insight into the factors that structure presidential rating scores. Results demonstrate that rating scores can be predicted with relative ease. Furthermore, new measures are found to be significant—two operationalizing the latest extension of Stephen Skowronek's “political time” thesis and one controlling for cultural level preferences favoring “progressive” presidents. This suggests that expert evaluators take note of presidential performance within context. It also suggests that experts of all political stripes are influenced by the milieu in which their evaluation takes place. In the end, while no claim is made that the popular expert surveys used in this study provide a true measure of presidential greatness, it is argued that ranking polls may tell us more than critics admit.

We seek to extend discourse on“the reconstructive presidency” to the edge of new frontiers in two interrelated ways. First, we argue that reconstructive presidents act within critical junctures in which they exploit periodic opportunities to revitalize enervated political regimes, but that failure to exploit such opportunities can also occur. Second, we clarify the tasks necessary for reconstructive success, contending that reconstructive presidents must (a) shift the main axis of partisan cleavage, (b) assemble a new majority coalition, and (c) institutionalize a new political regime.Through conducting typical and crucial case studies, we show how reconstructive dynamics unfold in either a straightforward or protracted manner depending on whether presidents initially handed reconstructive opportunities, via encountering enervated political conditions, succeed in accomplishing the tasks we delineate. In doing so, we depart from previous interpretations and recast the “System of 1896” as a successful reconstruction.

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

No abstract

No abstract