First published 2011 by Paradigm Publishers
Published 2016 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright 2011, Taylor & Francis.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Freie, John F., 1947
The making of the postmodern presidency: from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama / John F. Freie.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59451-782-2 (hardcover: alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-59451-783-9 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. PresidentsUnited StatesHistory20th century. 2. PresidentsUnited StatesHistory21st century. 3. Political leadershipUnited StatesHistory 20th century. 4. Political leadershipUnited StatesHistory21st century. 5. United StatesPolitics and government20th century. 6. United StatesPolitics and government21st century. I. Title.
JK511.F74 2011
973.92092'2dc22
2010053084
Designed and Typeset by Straight Creek Bookmakers.
ISBN 13: 978-1-59451-782-2 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-1-59451-783-9 (pbk)
The argument of this book is straightforward: The dominant model used to explain presidential behavior, the modern presidency, is becoming less convincing at actually explaining what presidents do and, consequently, it should be replaced with an alternativethe postmodern presidency.
Since the 1960s the concept of postmodernism has been used to explain a wide variety of social and cultural changes that have sent tremors through the landscape of American society. It has been used to explain new cultural forms, architectural innovations, film genres, music impulses, and aesthetics; indeed, it has been applied to the very idea of who we are as humans (i.e., identity politics). Spanning a large number of disciplines, it has challenged modern assumptions about universality, rationality, hierarchy, dualistic thinking, unity, order, and, when pushed to its extreme, the ability to generalize about anything. Vaclav Havel describes the postmodern world as a place "where everything is possible and almost nothing is certain" (1994). Yet, if one reads political science literature about contemporary American politics it is as if the postmodern disruptions that have had such a profound impact elsewhere have somehow skipped over our national political system, especially the presidency. This seems quite improbable. Why have political scientists been reluctant to seriously consider the postmodern presidency?
There are several overlapping reasons that political scientists have hung on to the modern presidency model in spite of growing concerns about its explanatory power. First, all explanatory models, once adopted, contain levels of inertia that make those who have used the models hesitant to discard them, even in light of contradictory evidence. In his study of scientific revolutions, historian of science Thomas Kuhn (1970) noted that evidence that runs counter to the dominant scientific paradigm seldom was the driving force for a revolution in thinking. Even though alternative paradigms were available, scientists operating within the dominant paradigm preferred to consider contrary evidence "anomalies" rather than reconsider their entire approach.
Rather than jettisoning the modern presidency perspective, presidential scholars have attempted to salvage it by modifying aspects of the model to better address what they perceive is a changing reality. Much like the frog who boils to death because he sits in water that slowly warms until it is at the boiling point, the changes that have been added to the model are so significant that they have now altered the model to such an extent that the originators of the model would no longer recognize it. The anomalies associated with the modern presidency model are piling up and we are approaching a crisis in the ability of the modern presidency model to adequately explain presidential behavior.
A second reason that the postmodern presidency model has not been embraced relates more to the nature of the image of postmodernism itself Pushed to its logical extremes by literary criticism and esoteric philosophical discourses, postmodernism has come to be defined by those who have nihilistically concluded that nothing can really be known about anything, that the trivial is just as significant as the seemingly important, and that, ultimately, there is no reality. Put off by such philosophical excesses, many in political science (and elsewhere) have simply rejected the entire postmodern approach. This is understandable as such arguments seem to lead us nowhere helpful.
But postmodernism need not be taken to those extremes and, in fact, to do so would be detrimental. I embrace postmodernism from a pragmatic viewpoint. Clearly, something is quite different about politics today than the politics of the 1950s. By being sensitive to postmodern sensibilities, we can see how the objectives and conduct of politics have changedshifting our gaze allows us to reinterpret anomalies, seeing how they actually fit into an alternative presidential model. While the logical extension of postmodern thought may provide us with no firm grounding, the postmodern "urge" challenges our preconceived ideas of behavior and encourages us to reexamine our assumptions.
Finally, replacing the modern presidency model with an alternative, whether postmodernism or another model, is difficult because of the uncomfortable fusion of the empirical and the normative aspects of the perspective. On the one hand, the modern presidency model is used as a series of assumptions and generalizations and an identification of variables that are used to explain presidential behavior. Over the years variables have been more precisely defined, data have been collected to test hypotheses, and additional generalizations and conclusions have been arrived at. All this is in keeping with the detached orientation of academics whose primary goal is explanation. But presidency scholars tend to go one step furtherthey also embrace the modern presidency model normatively. In other words, they not only use the model as an explanatory framework, but they also believe that the model provides a basis for describing how the president should behave. Presidency scholars have fused the "is" with the "ought," and because of that they have made it all the more difficult to jettison a model that is becoming increasingly problematic, even as an explanatory tool.
I should be clear at the outset that I am not embracing the postmodern presidency model normatively. I am not arguing that presidents should behave in the manner in which they do. Likewise, I do not embrace the modern presidency model normatively, but I do not think that political scientists should remain neutral, either. We need to be clearer about the frameworks we are using to explain political behavior and the standards we are using to normatively judge that behavior. I believe that the postmodern presidency model provides a better explanation of contemporary presidential behavior today than does the modern model. Normatively, I prefer using criteria consistent with a participatory model of democracy and, when I do so, I find some aspects of the postmodern presidency beneficial, but many more developments troubling. In other words, it is important to separate our attempts to explain political behavior from our assessments of what is beneficial for democracy.
