The Problematic of Presidential Leadership

 

The accession of a new presidential regime in Washington sent me back to a monumental late-20th century study of contrasting types of presidential leadership, Stephen Skowronek,The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush (Harvard U. Pr., 1993, 1997). 

Skowronek divided presidential history into four periods: (1) Patrician politics (1789-1832), when presidents purported to stand above faction and governed on the strength of their personal standing among elite notables; (2) Partisan politics (1832-1900), when political parties dominated and leadership utilized political patronage; (3) Pluralist politics (1900-1972), characterized by the rise of bureaucracy and bargaining among competing interests; and, finally, (4) Plebiscitary politics (1972- ), characterized by candidate-centered campaigns and a more direct relationship with the wider public, which generally prioritizes a growing economy.

More distinctively, he typed presidents in terms of a politics of reconstruction, presidents who repudiated the recent past (e.g., Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR), a politics of articulation, presidents who continue previous tradition ( e.g., Monroe, Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson), and a politics of disjunction, presidents who continue previous tradition, when that tradition is becoming inadequate to the time and politically insupportable (e.g., John Quincy Adams, Pierce, Hoover, Carter). He also discussed in somewhat less detail a politics of preemption, presidents whose repudiative authority is more limited that that of reconstructive presidents, with consequent difficulties (e.g., Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, and Nixon). He also alluded to three other more unique cases, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Cleveland.

Skowronek's analysis is quite dense and presents an immense amount of historical detail to buttress its distinctive treatment of presidential leadership. At the end of the 20th century, the author seemed to emphasize how modern transformations in American politics have substantially altered some of the variables that have traditionally oriented the exercise of presidential leadership. In his 1997 Afterword, reflecting on the as yet unfinished Clinton presidency, he suggested that preemptive leadership might likely characterize the future.

I have not read  Skowronek's 3rd edition (2020), which took his analysis  into Trump's first term (but before his catastrophic final, pandemic year and electoral defeat). By then, events had challenged Skowronek's earlier expectation that historical patterns were being overtaken by contemporary developments. My understanding is that he grappled with whether Trump would prove reconstructive, despite deviating from the historic pattern (in that Obama was not a disjunctive president), and his analysis foresaw the possibility that Trump would become in effect a party unto himself, which he obviously has since become.

But whatever was the case then, we have since experienced the Biden interlude and Trump's triumphant return to power with all his reconstructive aspirations. I don't know what Skowronek would say (or maybe has said) about Biden and Trump II, but here is what I think.

The modern period of Plebiscitary politics continues. The successful presidents (i.e., those who have gotten reelected) have, for the most part, been charismatic figures with a direct connection with the electorate. This was especially true of Regan, Clinton, Obama, and now Trump. Recent elections have also illustrated how that direct connection highlighted the importance of the economy in voters' calculations.

When first describing reconstructive presidents, Skowronek wrote "Presidents stand preeminent in American politics when government has been most thoroughly discredited, and when political resistance to the presidency is weakest, presidents tend to remake the government wholesale. It is worth noting, however, that the commanding authority presidents wield at these moments does not automatically translate into more effective solutions to the substantive problems that gave rise to the nationwide crisis of legitimacy in the first place."

Presumably, Trump is not familiar with the political science language the author employs, but it seems safe to suggest he aspires to be a reconstructive president and appears well positioned to become one. A quick comparison with a line like this from Obama's 2013 Inaugural - "We cannot ... substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate" - effectively illustrates Trump's repudiation of the previous regime. (Indeed, Trump represents an apparently wholesale repudiation of virtually all previous iterations of the American constitutional regime.)

Of course, no one can know for certain how things will play out. But, from the unique perspective of our contentious present, the Biden presidency (which, once upon a time, seemed poised to be quite consequential, but now appears to have been but an interlude between the Two Trump presidencies) now seems to have the characteristics of a disjunctive presidency, in the tradition of the two Adamses,  Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. Skowronek first described such presidencies as affiliates of the previous regime at a time when conditions  of governance have radically altered and the regime affiliate is left "with little beyond his own personal dedication and his keen appreciation of the complexity of the nation's problems to justify his tenure." That does seem to fit Biden better, from the perspective of the present than the earlier appreciation of him - more a Carter than an LBJ. And to the extent Biden really was disjunctive - marking the final end of post-New Deal, post-Cold War liberalism, the path has been paved for Trump to become a truly reconstructive president.

On the other hand, Trump's unique personality leaves the full future trajectory of his Administration a much more open question than any historical typology may be able to accommodate.

80 Years Later

 

More than a million people, mostly Jews but including members of other groups as well, were murdered by the Nazis at Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland during the Second World War as part of what we now know as the Holocaust. The notorious camp was liberated by soldiers of the Soviet Army 80 years ago today on January 27, 1945.

To mark this anniversary - occurring as it does in a time of increasing anti-semitism in the world - European dignitaries, among them Britain's King Charles III, King Felipe and Queen Letizia of Spain, Crown Prince Haakon Magnus of Norway, Prince Guillaume and Princess Stephanie of Luxembourg, King Philippe and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, King Frederik X and Queen Mary of Denmark, and Princess of Orange Catharina-Amalia, have converged on Auschwitz today.

Speaking at the Jewish Community Center in Krakow, King Charles said that the anniversary "is a moment when we recall the depths to which humanity can sink when evil is allowed to flourish, ignored for too long by the world." Noting that the number of Holocaust Survivors inevitably diminishes with the passage of time, the King said that "the responsibility of remembrance rests far heavier on our shoulders, and on those of generations yet unborn."

"The act of remembering the evils of the past," King Charles stressed, "remains a vital task and in so doing, we inform our present and shape our future."

Photo: King Philippe of Belgium, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, British King Charles III, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and King Frederik X of Denmark and Queen Mary of Denmark at the 80th Anniversary Commemoration at Auschwitz.

The President and the Bishop

 

Over 50 years ago, Reinhold Niebuhr lamented the potentially harmful effect of a White House invitation on a preacher. Indeed, it is no secret to anyone that proximity to political power often diminishes religious witness. But not yesterday at the National Cathedral's post-Inaugural Prayer Service attended by our new President and Vice President!

The Episcopal Bishop of Washington, Mariann Edgar Budde, preached a sermon on "the kind of unity that fosters community across diversity and division. A unity that serves the common good." Once a commonplace expression, the common good is now a radical concept, given the national turn inward in recent years. Still, it could sound like a platitude, were it not grounded, as Bishop Budde's exposition was, in a solid public theology of what it must mean to live as a community in a free society in which we do not and likely never will be in complete agreement. As foundations for unity, she highlighted honoring the inherent dignity of every human being, honesty in private and in public, and humility, recognizing our own individual limits and our need for one another. 

All that was good and edifying, if perhaps maybe somewhat potentially disconcerting to those in possession of political power. But as the preacher herself had noted earlier in her sermon, "God is never impressed with prayers when actions are not informed by them." So, she addressed the president directly, with a plea that will now be forever famous:

Millions have put their trust in you. And as you told the nation yesterday you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country. And we're scared now.

She then went on to mention some of those who have reasons to be scared. among them, of special relevance right now:

the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants, and work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens or have the proper documentation. But the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues … and temples.

I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. And that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.

Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger for we were all once strangers in this land. May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being; to speak the truth to one another in love. and walk humbly with each other and our God. For the good of all people in this nation and the world.

I have heard no better summary of the contemporary challenge facing the Church in relation to our political regime in the days and years to come.

Photo: Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde speaking Tuesday at the Washington National Cathedral during a prayer service President Trump attended. Doug Mills/The New York Times.

Credit..Doug Mills/The New York Times

Trump II

Today, the 45th President of the United States returned to the White House as the 47th President of the United States. Only once before, in 1892, has an ex-President (Democrat Grover Cleveland) been re-elected President after a term out of office. That historical curiosity further highlights the uniqueness of this American moment. 

More important than that historical coincidence, of course, Trump's return to power is unique in more infamous ways, with which we are all familiar by now, among them his association with the January 6 coup attempt and his felony convictions in his home state.

Trump returns to the Presidency as the charismatic head of a grand coalition. In this, he is not unlike the great FDR, who managed (more or less successfully) to hold together a coalition of southern segregationists, northern urban blue-collar workers, and liberal intellectuals interested in centralized economic planning and and international order. Trump's coalition, of course, is different and includes mega-rich oligarchs, once Democratic-voting blue collar workers, and a coalition of Christian Evangelicals and conservative Catholics whose religious identity has been transformed into a political allegiance, all of whom are held together by the charisma of Donald Trump. As with the Democrats after FDR, whether and how long anyone else will be able to hold together Trump's coalition in the future remains to be seen. Indeed, even now with Trump's charisma at its apex, the factions within the Trump coalition have started sniping at each other (e.g. MAGA, personified by Steve Bannon, vs. the oligarchs, personified by Elon Musk).

The Inaugural ritual (moved indoors this year because of the extreme cold as it was in 1985) is a ceremonial enactment of the peaceful transition of power, which we have historically highlighted as a defining characteristic of our political system. The principals in the inaugural ceremony seemed committed to carry out that tradition. So President Biden did not leave the city beforehand - as John Adams did in 1801 and Donald Trump did in 2021. Everyone was there who was supposed to be there, performing his or her prescribed role. Somewhat discordantly, the tech oligarchs were also seated there in prominent places - more prominent than those nominated for seats. in the new President's Cabinet.

The once and future President took his oath. The band played Hail to the Chief, and 21 guns were fired. The President and his predecessor shook hands. The Battle Hymn of the Republic was sung. Then, marching to a somewhat different drummer,  came the Inaugural Address. 

"The golden age of American begins right now."

The President promised "to put America first" and to end the "weaponization of the Justice Department." He warned of "a crisis of trust" and denounced government's purported failures under the past Administration. It was a typically Trump litany of contemporary American failures, which the new President promises to change and thus arrest America's decline. Invoking his near-death experience last summer, he claimed he had been "saved by God to make America great again." He characterized his Inaugural as "liberation day" and called his reelection the most consequential for our country.

He announced his intent to sign a series of Executive Orders, declaring a national emergency at our southern border, reinstating the "Remain in Mexico" policy, designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. He also promised to bring down inflation, declaring a "National Energy Emergency," and exporting American energy all over the world. He promised to end the "Green New Deal" and revoke the electric vehicle mandate. He promised tariffs, claiming they will somehow enrich American citizens, and he promised to establish an "External Revenue Service." 

He promised a colorblind and merit-based society and declared it official policy that there are only two genders.

He promised to be a "peacemaker" and a "unifier."

But he also promised to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico and to restore President McKinley's name to the mountain that until recently bore his name in Alaska. He denounced the return of the Panama Canal to Panama, alleged the Chinese have acquired control of it, and ominously promised to take it back. He promised to increase American wealth and expand American territory.

Overall, it certainly sounded more like an election campaign speech than an Inaugural Address. The contrast between the traditional ceremonial and ritual goodwill, on the one hand, and the outburst of MAGA malevolence, on the other, was jarring, if unsurprising. It was the very opposite of hte opening words of the most famous Inaugural Address (JFK 1961): "We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom."

The majesty and solemnity of our constitutional civic religion were all on display, but the substance seemed to be challenged by the new Administration's agenda. 

Photo: Donald Trump is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States by Chief Justice John Roberts in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Pool Photo By Julia Demaree Nikhinson

It Happened at a Wedding

 

January is the month of new beginnings. We just recently started a new year. Today, we may be beginning a new era without Tik Tok.Tomorrow, the United States will inaugurate a new (even if  already very familiar) President. 

In her liturgy today, the Church seems to want us to recall the inauguration, so to speak, of Jesus’ public mission. The Gospel tells us that Jesus performed a miracle (changing plain water into lots of high quality wine) as the beginning of his signs in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him. It’s a very familiar story, noteworthy for taking place at a wedding. 

While marriage imagery and symbolism permeate the scriptures, this is the only wedding specifically mentioned in the New Testament, the only one we know for sure that Jesus attended. Of course, the account is not about the wedding per se, much less is it about marriage, despite its popular use at wedding ceremonies. It is about the beginning of his signs, about Jesus revealing his glory, and his disciples believing in him.

In the words of one 5th-century Bishop: “To those who see only with the outward eye, all these events at Cana are strange and wonderful; to those who understand, they are also signs.” [Faustus of Riez, Sermon 5 of Epiphany 2].

That said, it all happened at a wedding. 

Weddings have always been big events, perhaps the biggest events in most communities as two families form an alliance to create a new family. For most of human history, weddings have been celebrations not just of a couple’s union and of family alliances, but of the continuation of the human race. In the face of the inevitably limited lifespan of everyone there, a wedding defiantly declares that the human story will continue generation after generation (which is why declining marriage rates in a society are seen as so precarious!).

As for this particular wedding, the 20th-century Catholic TV Bishop Fulton Sheen suggested that perhaps it was the wedding of one of Mary’s and Jesus’ relatives, which was what gave Mary a family reason to ask Jesus to intervene. Sheen also suggested that, since Jesus had brought his disciples, they may have contributed to the wine running out!

Who knows? But, again, it did all happen at a wedding.

We today may tend to think of weddings as very fancy, special events. But, in one sense, certainly a wedding is a very ordinary event. Human beings have been doing this on a regular basis in every known society for thousands of years. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer famously describes marriage as instituted of God in the time of man's innocency - meaning that it goes back to God’s original plan for human beings even before sin entered the world. By choosing a wedding for the first of his signs, Jesus not only honored and sanctified the institution of marriage, he also honored and sanctified ordinary human life, the way we live in the world day-in day-out, as human beings and together in society, the things that make us who we are. Jesus here bumps our ordinary daily work and play up a grade, from water to wine, from our ordinary day-to-day activities to our highest hopes and aspirations, which can only be fulfilled through him, with him, and in him.

There is challenge as well as opportunity here - a challenge to take seriously what we do day-in and day-out, what we make of this new year, this time without Tik Tok, this new political era, etc.

I suspect that this was what the second Vatican Council had in mind when it said that nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in the hearts of those who follow Christ. Like the disciples at Cana, we are being invited to experience the water of our ordinary lives upgraded to the wine of following Christ.

Homily for the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time, Saint Paul the Apostle Church, January 19, 2025.

Photo: Saint Paul the Apostle Church in Ordinary Time 2025.