The Paradoxes of the Presidency — Cronin (1983) Comprehensive Notes

1) Overview and Context

• Core idea: The presidency is imbued with enduring paradoxes that arise from conflicting public expectations, institutional design, and the practical limits of power.
• Key drivers identified by Thomas C. Cronin:
  • Public demand for both decisive action and open, collegial leadership.
  • Constitutional vagueness: the Founders avoided enumerating powers, letting informal and symbolic authority fill gaps.
  • The presidency’s power expands and contracts with situations and personalities.
  • Public beliefs and hopes heavily shape presidential behavior and perceived success.
• Consequences discussed:
  • Paradoxes can produce no-win or near no-win situations for presidents.
  • Unrealistic expectations may prompt overpromising or overreaching, complicating governance.
  • A more realistic understanding of paradoxes could foster tolerance, redefine priorities, and encourage alternative leadership centers beyond the presidency.
• Practical aim of the piece:
  • To map major paradoxes, explain their implications for performance and public evaluation, and suggest ways to navigate them through realistic expectations and adaptive leadership.
• Framing note:
  • The vitality of democracy depends on the interaction between presidential leadership and a willing, listening public.
    -, Carefully planned innovation is nearly impossible without competent, fairminded leadership.

2) The Paradoxes (1–10)

2.1 The Gentle and Decent but Forceful and Decisive President (Paradox 1)

• What it claims:
  • The public wants a just, decent, humane leader, yet also demands toughness, decisiveness, and even ruthlessness at times.
• Public expectations and tensions:
  • Critiques of leaders as “too nice” or “too decent” (Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Gerald Ford).
  • Need for strength highlighted by examples like Morris Udall and the demand that a president act with strength even when favouring decency.
  • Eisenhower cited as a model of reconciled decency and decisiveness.
  • Carter emphasizes strength rooted in faith and compassion: a strength grounded in humility and care.
• Implications for performance/evaluation:
  • The public often raps presidents for being too soft or too aggressive, creating pressure to toggle between personas.
  • Risk of inconsistent behavior across issues (e.g., civil rights progress followed by hard-nosed military actions).
• Key quotes/examples:
  • “Mr. Nice Guy” is not enough; the public dislikes weak leadership. The paradox asks for the sinistrous as well as the sincere.
• Takeaway:
  • This paradox creates a challenging balance: maintain humanity while projecting strength; failure to balance can undermine legitimacy or effectiveness.

2.2 The Open and Sharing but Courageous and Independent Presidency (Paradox 2)

• What it claims:
  • Americans value a system of checks and balances, openness, and delegating authority, yet also expect a strong, decisive leader who can act with independence.
• Public tensions:
  • Debate over deroyalization vs. mythic leadership: some argue for an open, accountable presidency; others insist on strong, sometimes secretive leadership.
  • Harold Laski argues that Americans want a president who demonstrates independence and vigor; too much deference to colleagues weakens presidential legitimacy.
• Implications:
  • The public simultaneously desires transparency and strong unilateral action; this fuels expectations for both openness and supremacy.
  • The president must be a symbol and a practical actor, capable of dramatic leadership and personal appeal.
• Takeaway:
  • The system pressures presidents to be both lion and fox, secular leaders and civil religious mentors, while also keeping a symbolic, unifying function.

2.3 The Programmatic but Pragmatic Leader (Paradox 3)

• What it claims:
  • Voters want a president who is programmatic and principled, yet realistic enough to negotiate and compromise.
• Public tensions:
  • Roosevelt promoted moral leadership but also recognized that vague, flexible strategies can be effective; Carter faced criticism for flexibility and lack of firm commitments.
• Implications:
  • The “fuzziness” issue arises: ambiguity can be leveraged for political flexibility, yet may be seen as duplicity.
  • The secret is balancing steadfast character and competent negotiation to navigate political minefields.
• Notable discussion:
  • The public may misinterpret cautious pragmatism as weakness, while others view flexibility as political skill.
• Takeaway:
  • A successful programmatic leader must anchor on steady values (character, competence, rectitude) while avoiding overly rigid positions that alienate key groups.

2.4 An Innovative and Inventive yet Majoritarian and Responsive Presidency (Paradox 4)

• What it claims:
  • Citizens want bold, innovative leadership but also expect responsiveness to public opinion and majorities.
• Tensions:
  • Leaders fear moving too far ahead of times; yet they are expected to make long-range changes and set ambitious goals.
  • Kennedy is cited as encouraging public participation while cautioning that innovations should not be forced on a slender mandate.
• Implications:
  • Presidents must balance visionary leadership with listening to the people, avoiding catalytic leaps that provoke backlash.
• Takeaway:
  • The ideal democratic leader is an uncommon person of common opinions: capable of innovation yet tethered to public sentiment.

2.5 Taking the Presidency Out of Politics (Paradox 5)

• What it claims:
  • There is public desire for a nonpartisan, above-politics presidency, yet the job requires political bargaining, coalition building, and strategic manipulation of political coalitions.
• Tensions:
  • Roosevelt exemplified nonpartisanship in rhetoric while engaging in highly partisan coalition-building.
  • The public wants a president above politics, but also expects a political broker who can assemble coalitions and navigate party and interest-group dynamics.
• Implications:
  • An overly anti-political stance risks isolation and impractical governance; a totally political presidency risks eroding public trust.
• Takeaway:
  • A democracy requires a president who is both above politics in rhetoric and deeply engaged in political processes to get things done.

2.6 The Common Man/Who Gives an Uncommon Performance (Paradox 6)

• What it claims:
  • The public prizes the “common touch” while simultaneously demanding an uncommon, exceptional leadership performance.
• Evidence:
  • California Field Research Corp findings: people want honesty and plain tastes, but also want inspiring, exciting orators.
  • Examples: Truman’s plain, effective decision-making; Carter’s “peanut farmer” image aiding appeal, yet needing extraordinary leadership qualities.
• Implications:
  • The paradox creates a tension between accessibility and exceptional capability; leaders must be relatable but also outstanding in ability.
• Takeaway:
  • This paradox explains why presidents are expected to be both ordinary in appearance and extraordinary in achievement.

2.7 The Inspirational but Don’t-Promise-More-Than-You-Can-Deliver Leader (Paradox 7)

• What it claims:
  • Presidents should uplift and inspire, raise hopes, and promise progress, but overpromising undermines credibility when outcomes fall short.
• Public effects:
  • Great society programs, bold national visions (New Nationalism, New Deals, New Frontiers) generate optimism but often fail to materialize fully.
  • Nixon’s “open presidency” and promises often contrasted with less-than-fulfilling outcomes.
• Implications:
  • A balance is needed: inspire without overpromising; manage expectations while maintaining ambition.
• Takeaway:
  • The nation’s faith in “America is promises” drives the temptation to promise extraordinary change, which is difficult to deliver consistently.

2.8 The National Unifier / National Divider (Paradox 8)

• What it claims:
  • The presidency should symbolize national unity, yet governance inherently divides interests, coalitions, and political actors.
• Historical frame:
  • Washington set an ideal as a unifier; today presidents simultaneously symbolize unity and manage political divisions.
• Mechanisms of division:
  • Acting as party leader, setting priorities that advantage some groups, curating advisers, and coalitions can generate conflict.
• Tension with ombudsman role:
  • Truman’s view that the presidency defends public interests versus being perceived as enemy of the people.
• Takeaway:
  • The presidency must balance being a national unifier with the inevitability of political division, a central democratic paradox.

2.9 The Longer He Is There, the Less We Like Him (Paradox 9)

• What it claims:
  • Approval typically peaks early in a presidency and declines over time due to rising expectations and on-the-ground crises.
• Explanations:
  • Unrealistic early expectations contribute to disenchantment; peace and prosperity can slow or mitigate decline.
  • Familiarity can breed discontent as people observe limitations and shortcomings over time.
• Supporting evidence:
  • Johnson and Nixon eras cited as examples where long tenure raised complex perceptions and challenges.
• Takeaway:
  • The presidency tends to be an “apparent paradox”: growing experience can erode public support, even as effort to govern continues.

2.10 What It Takes to Become President/May Not Be What Is Needed to Govern the Nation (Paradox 10)

• What it claims:
  • The traits needed to win are not necessarily the traits needed to govern effectively.
• Winning attributes:
  • Ambition, ambiguity, luck, and strong public relations are crucial to winning primaries and elections.
• Governing attributes:
  • Governance requires more: a broad, capable governing coalition, honesty, experience, and the ability to craft effective legislation.
• Examples and tensions:
  • Qualities that help win elections (glibness on television, broad coalition-building) may not translate into trustworthy, stable administration.
  • Huntington’s view: the governing coalition after the election is what matters for effective governance, not the electoral coalition.
• Implications:
  • The path from candidate to president constructs a coalition and an administration that may diverge significantly in focus and support.
• Takeaway:
  • The ultimate paradox is that the presidency requires near-megalomaniacal ambition and strategic manipulation to win, yet governance demands restraint, coalition-building, and steady leadership.

2.11 Synthesis: The Enduring Nature of Paradoxes and their Governance Implications

• Core claims:
  • The paradoxes are deeply rooted in the constitutional structure and the democratic need for both authority and accountability.
  • The presidency is simultaneously too powerful and too inadequate, partly due to the mismatch between ideal expectations and institutional limits.
• Practical implications:
  • We should avoid simplistic fixes and instead foster understanding of limits and the art of improvisation under paradox.
  • Time in office tends to test and refine leadership, but can also erode public trust if expectations are not managed.
• Final message:
  • The presidency remains a crucial instrument for creative policy change but will continue to be embattled by paradoxes; the public and presidents should strive for best possible leadership without demanding more than the office can deliver.

3) Cross-cutting Themes and Implications

• Constitutional design and informal powers:
  • The Founders purposely left powers imprecise to avoid monarchy, resulting in wide informal and symbolic powers today.
• The role of public opinion:
  • Public sentiment both enables and constrains presidential action; presidents must anticipate and sometimes rebalance expectations.
• The politics of leadership and myth:
  • Myth, symbolism, and leadership style play as much a role as policy in shaping legitimacy and effectiveness.
• The media and technology:
  • Television and media coverage shape the pace and nature of political careers; media dynamics are central to modern candidacy and governance.
• Practical takeaways for exam/readers:
  • Expect public paradoxes to shape policy agendas and priorities.
  • Evaluate presidents by considering how well they acknowledge paradoxes, manage expectations, and balance competing demands.
  • Recognize the ongoing tension between rising ambitions and the practical limits of governance, and the necessity of coalition-building in a representative democracy.

4) Key Figures and Examples Mentioned

• Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ): Ambitious, capable of civil rights progress yet aggressive in foreign policy; illustrates paradoxical behavior.
• Dwight D. Eisenhower: Praised for balancing decency with decisiveness.
• Jimmy Carter: Emphasized personal strength rooted in faith; used a flexible, soft-spoken approach that critics labeled as fuzziness yet some praised as political skill.
• Richard Nixon: Used an approach of an open presidency but also engaged in strong political maneuvering and coalition-building; raised questions about maintaining a balance between openness and politics.
• John F. Kennedy: Encouraged public participation but warned against forcing innovations on a narrow mandate; portrayed as cautious about bold changes when mandate was slender.
• Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Gerald Ford, Morris Udall: Used to illustrate public expectations about decency, strength, and leadership style.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt: Exemplified a master of coalition-building and political maneuvering while projecting nonpartisan rhetoric.
• Harry S. Truman: Represented the defender of public interests and the complexity of balancing diverse constituencies.
• William Allen White (commentary on Hoover): Emphasized the need for dramatic leadership to mobilize public confidence.
• Samuel Huntington (political scientist): Emphasized the need to build governing coalitions that extend beyond electoral coalitions.

5) Notation and Key Phrases (LaTeX-Formatted for Clarity)

• Three-branched system: $3$-branched system
• Four-year term: $4$-year term
• Years since Washington: $187$ years since Washington
• Uncommon man of common opinions: "an uncommon man of common opinions"
• The presidency as both above politics and deeply political: a core tension of Paradox 5
• National unifier vs. divider: a dual role that modern presidents must navigate

6) Summary One-Liner

• Cronin argues that the modern presidency is defined by nine or ten enduring paradoxes that reflect conflicting public expectations, constitutional design, and the realities of governing; success lies in understanding and navigating these paradoxes with realistic expectations, disciplined leadership, and adaptive coalition-building, rather than seeking a flawless, contradiction-free office.