Doris Kearns Goodwin has a great book about the Roosevelt/Taft rift: The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism.
As to GHW Bush losing after one term- he lost in large part (in my opinion) because he was a real economist, not the economic trickle-down-tax-cut charlatan Reagan became as have the rest of the GOP since. Bush reversed his "read my lips, no new taxes" when confronted with the realism of federal budgets, spending and deficits.
I cannot predict of course, but suggest that a Democrat will win the presidency to succeed Trump in part due to policy results backlash and the personality aspect. I blame Gore's loss in 2000 in large part as a backlash to Clinton's era (scandals etc).
“But [Bush-41] lacked Reagan’s charisma, the personal magic which caused people who disliked Reagan's policies to like Reagan himself.”
Two points sprang to my mind when reading this.
1) In this sense, Trump-45, 47 is the Anti-Reagan.
2) Might the body politic’s recollection of Bush-41 and his polices in part explain the election of Bush-43?
“ Presidents with the appeal of Jackson, TR and Reagan have appeared rarely in American politics. Twice in a row? Never.”
One point sprang to my mind when reading this. I cringe when I read a statement that includes the word “never” or “always.” Prof. Brands’s subtitled regression to the mean has meaning to me. I just don’t know what the “mean” is anymore.
Fascinating comment on the political non-transferability of personal charisma, however defined, in connection with American presidents. One issue to grapple with, separately perhaps, is the way in which a charismatic president might successfully change the democratic system (let's speak plainly and say weaken or even destroy it) to ensure that he himself or a chosen, less charismatic successor cannot be successfully challenged at the ballot box or even in office. This has not happened in American history (to my knowledge). Does that mean it cannot happen in the future? I know it has happened elsewhere (Venezuela comes to mind). The question becomes do US democratic institutions have the resilience needed to survive the onslaught of a pernicious political charisma?
This assumes a free and fair election for Trump's successor. This is a completely unwarranted assumption. The people in power now will not let a Democrat be elected, and they have the full power of the intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement to manufacture a scandal or, if necessary imprison the candidate on false charges.
Given Trump you raise good questions about the political landscape as Trump departs. Impossible to see Trump giving any subsequent Republiican a pleasant boast to their candidacy. In fact he would be sniping at this poor soul at every step of the way. He would have clever nicknames for tĥose democrats who he feels may steal his crown. No doubt this period will be filled with intrigue.
I thought Truman as VP to the popular President Roosevelt is an interesting exception to this discussion. With the president's death it put Truman in a special place to carve out the strengths of his own. There was no ex president's shadow to worry about. Remarkably Truman became one of the near great presidents few could see given the height Roosevelt reached.
Doris Kearns Goodwin has a great book about the Roosevelt/Taft rift: The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism.
As to GHW Bush losing after one term- he lost in large part (in my opinion) because he was a real economist, not the economic trickle-down-tax-cut charlatan Reagan became as have the rest of the GOP since. Bush reversed his "read my lips, no new taxes" when confronted with the realism of federal budgets, spending and deficits.
I cannot predict of course, but suggest that a Democrat will win the presidency to succeed Trump in part due to policy results backlash and the personality aspect. I blame Gore's loss in 2000 in large part as a backlash to Clinton's era (scandals etc).
“But [Bush-41] lacked Reagan’s charisma, the personal magic which caused people who disliked Reagan's policies to like Reagan himself.”
Two points sprang to my mind when reading this.
1) In this sense, Trump-45, 47 is the Anti-Reagan.
2) Might the body politic’s recollection of Bush-41 and his polices in part explain the election of Bush-43?
“ Presidents with the appeal of Jackson, TR and Reagan have appeared rarely in American politics. Twice in a row? Never.”
One point sprang to my mind when reading this. I cringe when I read a statement that includes the word “never” or “always.” Prof. Brands’s subtitled regression to the mean has meaning to me. I just don’t know what the “mean” is anymore.
Fascinating comment on the political non-transferability of personal charisma, however defined, in connection with American presidents. One issue to grapple with, separately perhaps, is the way in which a charismatic president might successfully change the democratic system (let's speak plainly and say weaken or even destroy it) to ensure that he himself or a chosen, less charismatic successor cannot be successfully challenged at the ballot box or even in office. This has not happened in American history (to my knowledge). Does that mean it cannot happen in the future? I know it has happened elsewhere (Venezuela comes to mind). The question becomes do US democratic institutions have the resilience needed to survive the onslaught of a pernicious political charisma?
This assumes a free and fair election for Trump's successor. This is a completely unwarranted assumption. The people in power now will not let a Democrat be elected, and they have the full power of the intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement to manufacture a scandal or, if necessary imprison the candidate on false charges.
Given Trump you raise good questions about the political landscape as Trump departs. Impossible to see Trump giving any subsequent Republiican a pleasant boast to their candidacy. In fact he would be sniping at this poor soul at every step of the way. He would have clever nicknames for tĥose democrats who he feels may steal his crown. No doubt this period will be filled with intrigue.
I thought Truman as VP to the popular President Roosevelt is an interesting exception to this discussion. With the president's death it put Truman in a special place to carve out the strengths of his own. There was no ex president's shadow to worry about. Remarkably Truman became one of the near great presidents few could see given the height Roosevelt reached.