Midterm Review Blog
This week please use the blog to review for the exam. Feel free to post general or
specific questions or thoughts and then respond to each others posts.
You do not need to write anything more than brief blog entries but I
strongly encourage you to check into the blog regularly to look for
questions and to help share ideas to review for the exam. The more
entries that you add the better for everyone. Make sure to
review other entries so that you have correct concepts before the exam.
A couple of hints:
1. Use the review sheet (but don't psych yourself out) it is supposed to help you.
2.
Make sure that you have core concepts for each of the sections down, as you begin to connect those large concepts work to include
other ideas and identifications connected to those core ideas.
3. Make sure to review readings and class notes.
hey guys,
ReplyDeleteSo I'm having a little trouble understanding rhetoric. Whenever it is mentioned i get a bit confused. Maybe its because I'm not so familiar with government or maybe its because I've been studying so much that my brain is stuck :) If someone could explain rhetoric and its connection to what we are learning that would be amazing!
thank you
-Tamar
Great question...This especially came up during our Bimes and Mulroy article on populist rhetoric throughout time (though we saw it on other occasions). I will leave it to the other bloggers to chime in with more info but that can help in terms of where it primarily fit into class.
ReplyDeleteIn a more generic way, Rhetoric simply means arguement. How you persuade people and argue your point. We discussed Rhetoric in different contexts, but also specifically in terms of Populism. An extremely sumamrized account of populist rhetoric is legitimation (or mandate) and antagonistic appeals (us vs them). A populist leader aims to speak for the people. So what he will do is come up with something he thinks the people need and will support. Once he has the people's support, he can argue to Congress that they should pass whatever he is doing because it is what the PEOPLE want. And often times a way to rile up support for the people is to use the rhetorical us vs them style. the "Them" during the times of Jackson and Democratic populism was usually the wealthy and upper class. Nowadays, Republicans use this us vs them rhetoric to refer to "them" as big federal government.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorical style of presidency was also referenced by Tulis in his distinction between the Big C and the little c. The Big C is the Federalist approach to the constitution where they tried to limit the executive's power because they feared a demagogue (the "evil" version of rhetoric..someone who might sway the people into appointing him King or all powerful ruler, because he argued his point so persuasively). The little c was the idea of Woodrow Wilson, who promoted the idea of a rhetorical presidency, where a president didn't have to run the executive branch as it is exactly layed out in the constitution, but rather he could derive interpretations from it, and using rhetoric, argue why his changes are legitimate and helpful. This rhetorical style also appeals more to the people. And we saw different presidents implementing this style at different times. (ex. President Bush after 9/11)
I hope that helps. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Tovah Silbermann
I'm going over Skowronek's piece and am a bit confused about something I have written in my notes. When we spoke about what type of presidents Bush and Obama would be considered, I have that Bush would be "politics of articulation" president because he took traditional ideas and gave them a new twist. However, from my understanding of Skowronek, politics of articulation refer to presidents who assume office after a president from their own party whose policies were very much accepted by the public. If my understanding is correct, then Bush would not be from the politics of articulation because Clinton was a Democrat, not a Republican. Or maybe we aren't talking about regimes in the broader sense--ideas and beliefs. Either way, clarification would be great!
ReplyDeleteAnother clarification needed: definition and difference between the tradition and modern presidencies/presidents. Thanks!
ReplyDeletein regards to your first comment, it doesn't necc have to do with somebody from your party vs not from your party, but rather the overall existing ideologies of the time.
ReplyDeleteHey class,
ReplyDeleteIm struggling with answering how Skowronek views political and secular times relating to one another? Would love some insight if anyone can help!
Thank,
Lauren
Hey all,
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know of any successes during the presidency of Adams? I pretty much only remember reading about his failures. Maybe I missed the couple lines where it mentions success? Thanks!
Thank you Tova that really helped!!! You know your stuff. Here's another one, if Tulis was given as a key term, what do you think I would need to write to sum up his beliefs and commentary?
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Tamar
Hey,
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain the role and goal of the president in the market-place according to Bert Rockman?
Thanks,
Tova W.
I think the comparison to a marketplace is the following: In a marketplace, there are set underlying rules determining its structure and functioning, and no one breaks those rules. However, the marketplace is full of mayhem and is always changing, and all the sellers there are competing to sell similar things to the consumers. The government is similarly chaotic, but also has the "underlying rules", which is the constitution. The "merchandise" is public goods, and the merchants are different people in the political system competing to dominate. Over time, the nature of this political marketplace has changed, and the president and executive branch have taken on more extensive responsibility. The constitution, however, limits a president's power to some degree, and so Rockman says there's a conflict between what the current climate of the marketplace dictates and its rules. So the president is an entrepreneur and is supposed to innovate, make policy, and push things through but really can't necessarily do all this according to the rules of the game. So everyone necessarily ends up being disappointed because expectations don't meet reality when the president promises and then can't deliver.
ReplyDeleteI think that's way more than you were asking, but it's written out so I'll post it anyways...
Hi Tova,
ReplyDeleteI hope this can help explain your question somewhat:
Rockman argues that the American political system is set up like a marketplace in which the suppliers of the public goods (transportation, medicare, etc.) compete and this translates into a kind of power. Many people, including the president, compete to give the people these services. The political system is chaotic but set up via rules of the Constitution that create norms and lead people to compete and dominate. This includes ALL PEOPLE in the political system – president, Congress, judiciary, etc. There cannot be a political monopoly because of the Constitution. Over time, however, there are periods of domination. We see that more political power has been given to the president and the national government via expectation we have of him. But the president is always limited because of the Constitution. Rockman states that the real challenge are those presidents who want to gain and exert as much pressure as possible to gain power but in the end they are always limited.
Is there a way to upload documents?
ReplyDeleteI made a (very) rough outline of who says what in the material just as a quick reference/review.
posted for Sarit:
ReplyDeletedid obama step into a resilient or vulnerable regime? if so, what
approach did he take in response?
This has been great so far. If you would like to upload review sheets or your notes from presentations in class you can either post them here or e mail them to me and I will post them to our class website which you can see here:
ReplyDeletehttps://sites.google.com/site/uspresidency/course-documents/stern-presentation
Lea: soem successes of Adams presidency (not highlighted in the reading, which pretty much blasted him): maintaining neutrality in war between France and England, continuing to build our monetary and banking power, and strengthening the judicial branch by appointing his sec of state John Marshall as chief justice of the supreme court (who did more to strengthen the judicial branch than anyone else)
good luck studying all!
Oh and one last thing I meant to say yesterday...
you can and should study hard before the exam: work on those things that are harder to remember, scramble to connect the dots, and build a narrative in your head about how important concepts, events, and people relate to one another. But once you get to class tomorrow don't worry about what you don't know, just focus on what you do know and think of it as an opportunity to show off. Best of luck!
Lea- Regrading Adams, we mentioned that he was a prolipohic writer which helped recount what happend at that time. We also said that on paper, he was prepared to be president. He was a a lawyer and a member of congress, and a leader of the revolutionary war.
ReplyDeletePosted for Rebecca Abrams:
ReplyDeleteWould anyone be able to please explain the different management styles listed in on the review sheet under 1e? I could also use some clarification on James David Barber. Thank you, the posts have been really helpful.
James David Barber suggests that presidents fall under certain psychological profiles and that these can help determine how they will act in office.
ReplyDeleteThey are:
Active positive – evidence personal growth and adaptability; they enjoy their work and find it a challenge to use power productively as a means to pursue goals beneficial to others. Their success rests on a fundamental sense of self confidence expressed in goal oriented behavior. Yet they are flexible in their pursuit of goals and willing to change or abandon them rather than suffer a costly political defeat. They are
Pragmatic politicians. include FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, George HW Bush, Clinton.
Active negative presidents invest lots of energy in being president but they do not appear to derive enjoyment from serving. Rather than exercising political power for the benefit of citizenry, seem to seek power for its own sake, exhibiting compulsiveness as if they are driven to pursue a political career instead of doing it for pleasure. This behavior arises from a poor self-image and lack of self confidence, traits caused by painful childhood experiences, they seek power and domination over others as compensation for their own lack of self esteem. May come to believe policies they favor are morally right, vital to nation’s interest, and impossible to compromise. May pursue a course of action even if obviously not working, pattern of rigidification that can ultimately cause own political failure. Includes Wilson, Hoover, Johnson, Nixon.
Passive positive – not in politics to seek power but rather because they are “political lovers.” They genuinely enjoy people and want to help them by doing small favors; in return they feel they are wanted and loved. Low self-esteem combined with a superficial optimism about life; tend to let others set goals for them and find it difficult to make decisions. Danger they pose is one of drift, leaving the affairs of state undirected. Includes Taft, Harding, Reagan.
Passive negative – combine two characteristics; unwillingness to invest much energy in that office and a lack of pleasure in serving. They pursue public office because they believe it’s something they ought to do, have a fundamental sense of uselessness and compensate for it by dutifully agreeing to work on behalf of their fellow citizens. Includes Coolidge, Eisenhower.
I also need an explanation of the management styles of presidents (formalistic, competitive, collegial)
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know which reading it's from?
Dina,
ReplyDeleteLike Tova said, just because Bush was Republican doesn't mean he wasn't willing to keep certain things that Clinton implemented. Skowroneck categorized Bush to be politics of articulation because though Bush did oppose certain socialist things during the Clinton administration, Bush called himself a "passionate conservative" and wanted to keep everything as the "status quo" that Clinton had handed him. It was only after 9/11 that Bush was forced to change things, but otherwise, he walked into a resilient regime with a good economy, good public standing, good market etc and was hoping to keep it.
- Leah Avner
Can anyone give a quick recap of secular time vs political time according to Skowronek? I understand the political time terms well, but don't quite get the secular terms and the connection.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
-Leah Avner
Does anyone know the exact dates for Bert Rockman's three historical periods (especially pre-modern)?
ReplyDeleteSarah,
ReplyDeleteFirst 100 years, Pre-Modern Presidency from 1880s-1933(FDR), Modern Presidency is from 1933-Today
Does anyone want to have a review session in back lounge of schottenstein tonight around 945 or 10??
ReplyDeleteTova- I think those leadership styles were in the same reading as the active passive stuff.
ReplyDeleteFormalistic means you prefer delegating
Collegial means you like teamwork and like minded people working together
Competitive means you like having a variety of opinions competing so that you get a range of ideas.
very helpful review sheet courtesy of Sarah N. has been posted to our course website:
ReplyDeletehttps://sites.google.com/site/uspresidency/course-documents/stern-presentation
Thanks Sarah!
Can someone please explain to me what the four factors for the Big "C" and little "c" are? ( demagogue, representation, Separation of powers, independence of the executive)
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Does anyone know "patterns in presedential rhetoric", regarding populism?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how fear of demagoguery, representation, separation of powers and independence of the executive play a role in the 2 types of presidencies listed by Tulis?
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Rebecca,
ReplyDeletea) Thanks for the answer earlier!
b) I think those four factors explain the reasoning behind the limitation of presidential power and federal government with the Big C. To my understanding:
When putting together the constitution, fear of demagogues was very legitimate given past experience with monarchy, and they didn't want a president creating a tyranny and running away with power from convincing some people that he should have it. The representation issue is that you don't want a situation where there is fair representation (eg, representation by population, etc) but the majority persecutes or takes away rights from the minority even if they did so by "democratic" means. Separation of powers is so that the branches share power and no one is too dominant, and also each can specialize in different areas. Independence of the executive is that the president and executive branch should not be swayed by transient and fluctuating public opinion, nor pressured by or reliant on congress and rather can have a view of the "whole ground".
Hope that makes sense!
Big C:
ReplyDeleteDemagoguery – that which attempts to sway popular passions (soft demagogue flatters constituents by claiming they know what’s best, hard demagogue attempts to create/encourage division among the people to build/maintain constituency = extreme rhetoric that ponders to fear.
Representation 1) popular elections (indirect for senate, supreme court and presidency) because in a direct democracy a majority may tyrannize a minority. They instituted the electoral college – a semiautonomous locus of decision for presidential selection chosen by state legislatures at each election.
2) various term limits (house members selected every 2 years so they respond to public pressure)
3) Authority – formal power from the constitution
4) nation itself would insulate governing officials from sudden shifts in public opinion
Independence of the executive: executive made independent to withstand the temporary delusion of popular opinion, derives authority from constitution, not a government branch, most likely to adopt different policy views, can command view of whole ground
Separation of powers: Richard /nuestadt – separate institutions sharing power, divided up to prevent any one branch from having enough power to rule the other, makes effective governance more likely (each branch has its own tasks)
Little C:
Separation of powers: synonymous with checks and balances, thought congress and president should cooperate, not be separate.
Representation: favored interplay between representative and constituent that would educate the constituent. “interpretation” – leader acts as the interpreter
Independence of the executive: Wanted presidents to receive their authority independently through a mandate from the people. Urged leader to sift through multifarious currents of opinion to find a core of issues that he believed reflected majority will even if majority was not fully aware of it. Would require simplification of the arguments to accommodate the masses.
Demagoguery: Demagogue appeals to whimsical popular mood, the leader more interested in fostering permanent interests of the community. Wilson fails to properly explain how his interpreter-leader would not turn into a demagogue.
does anyone know the two presidencies that overlap, similarities differences? I'm not really sure what it's referring to.
Sarah, thanks for the study guide! It's really great. Just one thing for everyone to look out for- when referring to Wilson, I'm pretty sure Prof Epstein was referring to James Wilson who advocated for a strong singular executive branch NOT Woodrow Wilson who was president in the early 1900.
ReplyDelete-Leah
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how to explain the "bully pulpit"? Thanks!
- Adena
Regarding Skowroneck: I forgot what we classified Obama as...
ReplyDeleteDoes he fall under politics of reconstruction since he inherited a weak regime that he was opposed to and is trying to change?
Secular Time is time as it moves through history. Specifically, modernization of the presidential leadership and the structures that define power. Hence the periods are defined by periods of time corresponding to the passage of history and america's development.
ReplyDeletePolitical Time is recurrent patterns in leadership that are shaped by the president's relationship with the existing regime. Meaning, it doesn't matter when the president serves, it looks more at their style and the situation when they came into office. It compares the president's political orientation as compared to congress and then if congress is vulnerable or resilient.
For political time, i wouldn't think of it as "time" if that makes sense.
As for patterns in presidential rhetoric as it relates to populism, i think it is referring to the fact that the president will change their rhetoric, the way they talk, when speaking to different groups of people. Generally, almost 50% of the country did not vote for the president, and yet, he is still responsible to represent everyone. So as he travels he needs to assure that everyone likes him- so when he's in north dakota he'll talk about farming, but when he comes to NY he'll talk about business. Doing whatever it takes to appeal to the people they all feel represented.
Also, earlier someone asked where Obama and Bush fit into the Skowroneck model. In my notes i wrote that Obama probably came in in opposition to the regime so he's between reconstruction and preemption. For Bush, i wrote that he is articulative because he was serving mostly in a post 9/11 world so he wanted to be a compassionate conservative- meaning that he wouldn't oppose all programs that the democrats tried to enact.
I hope this is correct/helps!
ALSO some of us are going to meet in schott to review around 10 tonight- feel free to stop by!!
ReplyDeleteDo we have to know all the roles of the 13 colonies for the test?
ReplyDeleteThe colonies we spoke about are:
ReplyDelete- NY: business
- Maryland: Catholics free from persecution
- Massachusetts: Puritans free from persecution
- Georgia: poor
- Rhode Island: religious misfits
- Virginia: Make it big and go home
I have a few questions:
ReplyDeleteWhat's Obama's organizational structure?
How has the relationship between the people and the president changed? (Is this referring to the change from Patrician to Partisan/Big "C" to little "c" president?
Thanks!
Dina
Adena,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand the bully pulpit is when a president uses his ability to speak directly to the public to urge them to pressure their congressmen into passing legislation that the president on his own couldn't convince them to pass. Maybe an example of this could be Obama trying to get his Jobs Bill passed by appealing to the people because Congress was unwilling to pass it but I'm not sure. I think it represents another way that the power of the president has expanded overtime and how he has grown more connected to the people than originally designed in the constitution.
hope this helps! if anyone understood the bully pulpit differently please let me know!
Kimberly
I have a little more to say about the little c presidential approach that I think might be helpful.
ReplyDeleteAs was already stated, this reinvention of who the president is is based on Woodrow Wilson who was a Constitution scholar before he was president during WWI. He thought that the limited role of the president was too weak, and so the president has to do more by speaking, acting, and proactively leading the people. The president should figure out what the people want even if they don't know it, and then *tell* them what they think in a simplified way.
I think it is also helpful to understand Big C and little c by example.
Clinton was categorized as a 2nd constitutional president (little c), because he was smart, a good speaker, and dynamic. However, when he was impeached, he was pushed more into the 1st constitutional presidency (Big C).
GW Bush, on the other hand, started out as a more reserved 1st Constitutional president, but after 9/11 he became more of a little c rhetoric president who actively led the people.