White House Inheritors and Climbers: Presidential Kin, Class, and Performance, 1789–2002 (original) (raw)
2003, New England Journal of Public Policy
To attain the highest rungs along the public ladder in a democratic society requires a fortuitous combination of talent, intelligence, and luck. Many seek those highest rungs; few attain them. Because democracy pays homage, often cynically, to the White House Inheritors and Climbers Presidential Kin, Class, and Performance, 1789-2002 Garrison Nelson The 2000 presidential election that pitted Republican Texas Governor George W. Bush, the son of a former president against Democratic Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., the son of a former U.S. senator was a dramatic reminder that presidential politics in the United States is not an equal opportunity employer. In this article retrospective assessments of presidential performance are related to social class and kinship connections for the forty-two presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush. Three separate evaluations of presidential performance were used: the 1989 Murray-Blessing Survey; the widely cited 1996 New York Times poll prepared by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.; and the 200 Federalist Society one prepared by conservative scholars for the Wall Street Journal. The public's assessment was based on polling data from various national polling firms, such as the Gallup, Harris, and Zogby organizations. The performance data was related to presidential kinship data from the New England Historic Genealogical Society in 1989 and 1996 and research on the social class origins of presidents prepared by Professor Edward Pessen. The findings indicate that presidents of upper social class origins scored consistently higher on the performance measures than did presidents of lesser origins. However, the number of presidential kinship connections appears to be unrelated to social class and to presidential performance. For both the historians and the American public, class trumps kin in assessing the quality of presidential performance.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Politics & Policy, 2003
Since World War 11, numerous polls and surveys have been conducted in an attempt to evaluate the performance ofpast presidents. Their major concern has been to distinguish, in an historical perspective, "great" presidents from those who are 'yailures. I' Ratings from the general public, however. rarely attempt to investigate which characteristics of the individuals in the Oval Ofice weigh in the minds of the evaluators. Researchers seldom investigate how the general public acquires information to make these assessments. We suggest that information is transmitted from an elite through an informed public to the general public through a "two-step jlow. " Using data from surveys of historians and the general public conducted by C-SPAN for its "American Presidents" series, we analyze the jlow of information regarding the qualities of presidential leadership among elites, the informed public, and the interested public and suggest that a mediatedflow of opinions on presidential greatness from the elite public to the interestedpublic exists. The public at large indirectly acquires elite opinions when making evaluative political judgments, yet it does not acquire the same basis for those judgments.
International Political Science Association - 24th World Congress of Political Science (Poznan, Poland)
In its pursuit of liberty and determination to prevent the rise of a political monarchy, the United States’ developed a highly democratic system of government that may have inadvertently fostered pseudo-aristocratic tendencies in enabling an oligarchy. The political dynamics and lived experiences of its ostensibly democratic development appear at odds with the nation’s founding principles. In America’s úber-democracy, voters elect almost every conceivable public office; yet the democratic process often contradicts its egalitarian foundations. One such contradiction is the prevalence of political elites within the public sphere, and the hegemonic role of America’s political dynasties. The existence and prevalence of political families speaks to the enduring power of pedigree in a society that supposedly apportions democratic authority based on merit. The persistence of political families in a democratic country raises concerns about imperfections in popular representation. My research focuses on twelve US case study families with at least four successive generations in the direct line elected to state or federal office. I will outline what I have found thus far that accounts for the perpetuation of these families throughout the decades; why political dynasties so entrenched in American politics; and what causes one dynasty to ultimately decline, only to have their place taken by another. This examination aims to understand why certain families are able to succeed in public office, generation after generation, and what this ultimately tells us about the value of class merit in American democracy.
Some Folks You Just Can't Reach: The Genetic Heritability of Presidential Approval
Among the more robust fields of study in American politics is presidential approval. The influence of rally events, the economy, political sophistication, and partisanship on political attitudes began with explorations into the dynamics of presidential approval. Despite this, we lack a complete understanding of the processes through which people evaluate presidential performance. This paper proposes a theoretical model that explains how presidential performance evaluations are strongly influenced by one's genetic make-up. The model is tested using twin data to estimate the genetic heritability of presidential performance evaluations and finds that presidential approval has a strong genetic component.
PARTISANSHIP AS A SOURCE OF PRESIDENTIAL RANKINGS
Presidential ranking polls communicate far more than an ordered list of names; they communicate the leadership qualities our nation values. Given this, the results of presidential ranking polls have been a source of contention. One recurrent concern is that the academic raters surveyed in the polls, who tend overwhelmingly to be partisan Democrats, may favor some presidents over others. This study looks for evidence of a partisan bias in the ranking polls. Concentrating on the modern presidency, we find that presidential partisanship is a potent predictor of rank; academic raters consistently rank Democratic presidents ten places higher on average than Republican presidents. We also compare the rankings from academics to rankings from non-academics and show that academic raters favor Democratic presidents more than non-academic raters. Our findings suggest, in accordance with previous literature, that partisan attachment affects the subjective judgments that presidential ranking polls inherently require.
Prior Experience Predicts Presidential Performance
While many assume that " experienced " presidents perform better, citizens do not know which prior experiences help presidents perform successfully, or in what ways. Drawing upon the organizational sciences literature, we argue that prior experiences similar to the presidency will positively predict performance in general; prior experiences similar to an aspect of the presidency will positively predict performance in that particular aspect; and experiences dissimilar to the presidency will either not predict, or negatively predict performance. Contrasting with previous literature, our findings support this intuitive rationale for understanding the effect of prior experience. These findings contribute not only to the long-standing president-centered vs. presidency-centered debate, but also to a growing body of literature explaining how leaders' backgrounds affect how they govern.
Partly because of the widespread tendency for Americans to think of themselves as “middle class,” subjective class identity often does not correspond to objective class position. This study evaluates the extent to which American voters' subjective class identities differ from their objective class positions. We then evaluate the implications of such differences for voting behavior using American National Election Studies data from eight recent presidential elections. Coding respondents according to whether subjective class identity is higher or lower than objective class position, we construct a novel schema of inflated, deflated, and concordant class perceptions. We find that there are substantial differences between Americans' subjective and objective social class: over two-thirds of the upper-middle class have a deflated perception of their class position, only half of the middle class have concordant perceptions, and more than a third of the working class have inflated perceptions. We also find that this divergence varies depending on sociodemographic factors, and especially race and education. The analyses initially show a pattern that those with inflated class perceptions are more likely to vote Republican. However, this relationship is not significant once we control for race and income.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.