Michael J. Korzi

“A Legitimate Function”: Reconsidering Presidential Signing Statements

This article is a reconsideration and reassessment of presidential signing statements. Although many scholars and commentators have weighed in on the practice since 2006—when Charlie Savages Boston Globe stories ignited a firestorm of criticism and debate on the issue—signing statements are still frequently misunderstood. Thus, one of the key purposes of the article is to delineate what signing statement is, from what it is not. Furthermore, the article examines the transition from the George W. Bush administration to that of Barack Obama. In particular, President Obamas views on, and use of, signing statements are elaborated and discussed. Although not a vigorous defender of the practice, President Obamas approach to signing statements is notable for its moderation and restraint, if sometimes more in theory than in practice. The article ends with an extended consideration of the utility and benefits of signing statements, while still acknowledging their potential ill effects.

The President and the Public: Inaugural Addresses in American History

This article examines presidential inaugural addresses to gain a perspective on the changing relationship between the people and the presidency throughout American political history. The analysis suggests three distinct models of inaugural address—constitutional, party, and plebiscitary—each articulating a different understanding of presidential leadership and the relationship between the presidency and the people. The constitutional presidents see themselves largely as restrained, constitutional officers with a minimal relationship to the people. The party model yields a role for the president which is more tied to the peoples will, especially as expressed through party. Even though tied more strongly to the public, party presidents recognize constitutional limits on their roles and powers. Plebiscitary presidents often eschew party affiliation and the guise of constrained constitutional officer, and cast themselves as engines of the American political system fully tied to public opinion. Plebiscitary presidents often make few references to other political actors or to the Constitution. Beyond helping us to better understand the contours of American political development, this analysis challenges the prevalent assumption in studies of the presidency that nineteenth-century presidents were not popular or “public” leaders.

William Howard Taft, the 1908 Election, and the Future of the American Presidency

Although the first presidential election where both major party candidates (William Howard Taft and William Jennings Bryan) hit the campaign trail, the election of 1908 is a neglected election. When scholars do address it, they typically focus on retiring incumbent president Theodore Roosevelt and his role therein. This article turns the focus away from Roosevelt, and also Bryan, and places it firmly on Taft, a reluctant candidate. Tafts role in 1908 is important because his very reluctance to embrace the changing expectations of the presidency helps to highlight the tensions between the old and new ways of campaigning and, more broadly, the traditional and modern presidencies. The article first addresses Tafts decision to abandon his “front-porch” campaign. Tafts initial inclination toward a front-porch campaign reveals well his more traditional approach to the election and to the presidency in general, just as his decision to abandon this plan and “stump” for votes reflects his submission to developing trends and expectations. Second, the article examines the changing role of technology, this election being the first to feature phonograph recordings of the candidates, which would then be sold—and played—across the country. Third, the tours and speeches of Taft in the 1908 general election take center stage. The spectacle of these tours offers further evidence of the changing contours of American politics and presidential leadership, especially in elevating the personalities of the candidates. Finally, the 1908 election is examined from the standpoint of American political development and presidential history.Although the first presidential election where both major party candidates (William Howard Taft and William Jennings Bryan) hit the campaign trail, the election of 1908 is a neglected election. When scholars do address it, they typically focus on retiring incumbent president Theodore Roosevelt and his role therein. This article turns the focus away from Roosevelt, and also Bryan, and places it firmly on Taft, a reluctant candidate. Tafts role in 1908 is important because his very reluctance to embrace the changing expectations of the presidency helps to highlight the tensions between the old and new ways of campaigning and, more broadly, the traditional and modern presidencies.The article first addresses Tafts decision to abandon his “front-porch” campaign. Tafts initial inclination toward a front-porch campaign reveals well his more traditional approach to the election and to the presidency in general, just as his decision to abandon this plan and “stump” for votes reflects his submission to developin...

A Review of “Eleventh Hour: The Politics of Policy Initiatives in Presidential Transitions“

ideal Democrat and ideal Republican—both moderates—in order to produce the perfect presidency. However, it could be equally possible to have “bipartisan” presidents who are nevertheless ideologically similar. For instance, a dual presidency could consist of Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a conservative from Alabama, paired with former Democratic Senator Zell Miller, a conservative from Georgia—bipartisan, but still ideologically unbalanced. Orentlicher assumes that party would trump ideology. Second, Orentlicher’s use of game theory assumes that each person would enter the game at the same point and build up trust as each makes one move after the next. But what happens if one of the co-presidents is not elected to a second term? This would produce an information asymmetry that could make cooperation difficult. Finally, Orentlicher assumes that executive power is quantifiable: two presidents would somehow split that power in half. But what is “half” of executive power? The Founders stipulated that the executive power is vested in a president. Whether the source(s) of that power can be found only in the Constitution is debatable. Despite its many limitations (including the claim that Nixon was impeached and forced to resign), Two Presidents Are Better than One is nonetheless an interesting and engaging read, and is perfect for fostering debate about the design of the American presidency, or for encouraging discussion regarding who is at fault for our polarized politics.

The Prudential Presidency: An Aristotelian Approach to Presidential Leadership. By Ethan M. Fishman. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. 160p.

A sense of puzzlement is likely to be the first reaction to Ethan Fishmans book. Aristotle and presidential leadership? These are topics that we tend not to associate with each other. Yet, as Fishman makes clear in this admirable and provocative work, Aristotle had much to say about proper political leadership, much that is directly applicable to evaluating and understanding American presidents and their acts of leadership.