In the early days of the Republic, the Congress ruled the country. The president handled foreign affairs and the day to day business of the Republic but didn't determine much of spending or law. Some presidents fought Congress but most acquiesced.
Cleveland's 1st term is the last true acquiescent executive. He muddled along, did what was necessary but more or less the nation he led was the one handed to him by Congress in action, in law, in spirit. And Cleveland was cool with that.
Then came Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of William Henry Harrison (the guy who got sick on inauguration day and died without ever digesting a good meal as president). Old man Harrison was connected to the old guard: he fought alongside James Monroe and he fought for James Madison; but grandson Harrison was just another white man with a big hat. He was notable for one thing: he was the first president (since Andrew Jackson) that demanded shit from Congress. Give me this, I want this, we need more of this, why haven't have I gotten more of that? Congress mostly just ignored President Grandson. Harrison never got anything he wanted and is not a particularly noteworthy president. But he changed the tone of dealings between the White House and Capital Hill.
Re-enter Cleveland. Now he was invigorated and wanted to become the active leader that Harrison had been, hoping for more success than his successor/predecessor. Cleveland was a moderately popular and successful Prez largely because he demanded and received more from Congress.
Next came William McKinley. McKinley was an ordinary Republican: austere, bland, wanted a do-nothing gov't. A lurch back toward Congress' complete control. Then he died (in Buffalo). (I would suggest 1896 is the origin of the modern political parties: McKinley would be a recognizable Republican today (more Jeb Bush than Ted Cruz) and William Jennings Bryan would be a recognizable Democrat today (from the far off Bernie Sanders wing))
McKinley's Veep, Teddy Roosevelt, liked the new style of president that Cleveland suggested: a charismatic personality that would by-pass Congress and speak directly to the American people to set an agenda creating a set of expectations that previously would've only been had by the moneyed classes. Roosevelt was a populist and a supporter of the poor against the wealthy and built a great support among the populace from his bully pulpit. The gov't was beholden to the people and must do more to inform them and include them.
TR's handpicked protege, William Howard Taft, however, was more of a McKinley-style Republican (or a 1st term Cleveland). Taft is the only president who served on the Supreme Court (and his public career is more distinguished as a jurist than as a Prez). Taft had a judicial state of mind, fascinated by the philosophical nuts and bolts of how the Constitution works rather than political minutiae and force of personality. Taft wasn't the kind of big personality that wanted to sell an agenda to the American people or get in the way of letting Congress run the country. He was a great disappointment to Roosevelt who returned (Cleveland-like) to attempt to win back the presidency only to fall short and spoil Taft's chances of reelection.
Instead the next prez was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson brought back a forgotten custom: the State of the Union Address. The Constitution says that the Prez must give Congress an annual accounting of the affairs of gov't; it doesn't say it has to be in speech form but Washington and Adams liked public speaking so they turned it into an annual speech to Congress. Jefferson didn't like giving speeches so he gave up on the oral tradition and just produced a written report (itself a conglomeration of annual cabinet level reports), which became the new tradition for over 100 years. But Wilson wanted to be more public, more outgoing, more like Teddy Roosevelt (or a 2nd term Cleveland). (His administration is ultimately marred by ill health which kept him from being more connected with the people and the state of affairs)
Next is Harding. Harding...well...kinda sucked at everything that could possibly be expected of a Prez. In fairness to Harding, I think he would've agreed with my assessment. But on election day 1920 he electrified enough voters to become Prez, mostly because women apparently thought he was dreamy (yipes! Gotta say: 1920 dreamy doesn't look like a peak vintage). His handsome visage (sic) created a connection to the populace. (Worth noting that his opponent was James Cox, Founder and CEO of Cox Communications, a megalithic media company still around today. Just because you run a communications company doesn't mean you're a natural born communicator)
After Harding died (Google it), came Calvin Coolidge. He is remembered as 'Silent Cal' but in his day he was actually a popular and well-respected radio talker. He made concise, pointed speeches that clearly explained what his intentions were as Prez. He was well liked for being level headed. (Worth noting he had a gangbusters economy which allowed his plain speaking style to appeal to people rather than irritate them)
Then came Herbert Hoover. I recently heard it said of him: 'if he'd become Prez in 1920, he would've been more popular than FDR, he would've been the Reagan of his time' (paraphrasing). Yup, he was the guy that get left holding the bag when the roaring economy stopped roaring. If he'd been there when the music got started, he would've been a house on fire. But after 1929, the whole everything was on fire. He was unable to get much done (nowadays we blame a mix of the Federal Reserve,the Treaty of Versailles and international manipulation of gold prices) and the economy kept spiraling out of control. He was unable to communicate a strong theory for dealing with the problems the nation faced and confidence wasn't restored til Hoover was gone.
FDR. Clear vision, clear message, dropped verbal bombs on an opponent (Hoover) that was easy to hate. Lured the people in with his soothing radio voice. Populist to the core. Way more Keynesian then Keynes ever was. Expanded the expectation of gov't service, the necessity of gov't control, of increased spending, power and regulation. The people loved him. Going to war only broadened his reach, his appeal and his legacy. Arguably the most powerful and popular Prez in the nation's history.
Truman was tolerated at best, squeaking through the election of 1948 which no one really thought he would win (least of all the Chicago Tribune). In hindsight he was a pragmatic prez who continued the parts of the FDR doctrine that people liked and presided over the defensive shell of the Cold War that lasted for decades. But at the time he was thought of as FDR's half wit flunkie and a notoriously awful public speaker. And along with Herbert Hoover, Truman was probably the only Prez whose appearances were more pervasive in film than in radio or TV. He reserved himself to a slower, more deliberate medium.
Eisenhower was a vastly popular and well respected General who was easily whisked into the White House. The first true TV Prez. He stayed admired all through his administration and the economy was good (still my model of how great an American Prez can be).
JFK defeated Nixon on TV but not on radio.
LBJ couldn't overcome the liberal media showing all those American teenagers and their hippie jam music.
Nixon was felled by the media. So far the only Prez literally run outta office by journalism.
Ford in this discussion is like Taft: returning the power to Congress and the Supreme Court, shrinking the executive. His most notable accomplishment at the time was being ridiculed mercilessly on a new TV show called Saturday Night Live. Perhaps still to this day our most ridiculed Prez (think about that...).
Carter rose to prominence with the help of Hunter S. Thompson on the pages of Rolling Stone and an eye-opening, still classic Playboy interview. In this discussion though he's more like Harding: Carter bungled everything about being Prez, it was a tough time to be Prez but, dude, he didn't have a Secretary of State for like two years! He is still the model of how to not do the transition period. He projected an air of 'malaise' and routinely dismissed cabinet officers. Nightline is a direct outgrowth of the Carter Administration: a news show started initially to cover only the story of the hostages in Iran and just kept running after the hostages returned. The 24 news cycle was right around the corner.
A quick recap: Roosevelt and Wilson were legendary public speakers; Coolidge and FDR were legendary radio speakers; Eisenhower and JFK were the original TV presidents; LBJ and Nixon were the media casualties; Ford and Carter were largely at the mercy of the media. Ronald Reagan changes all that.
But then George HW Bush was a media disaster who was carved up by Bill Clinton in 1992. Bush, like Truman, is a much more respected Prez in hindsight for his foreign policy accomplishments but in his day was bumbling boob on the TV who appeared utterly disconnected from modern American life.
Clinton was the offspring of Ronald Reagan: a whiz with the media, great public speaker that was wonky enough to get through any interview looking pretty good. And he instituted a new policy: daily press briefings. Every day reporters would gather together and instead of doing their jobs as journalists, they would be told exactly what the administration wanted them to know in perfect bite size chunks. The days of the Executive fighting the media are officially over, co-opting the media is the new way of things.
George W Bush was a notoriously bad speaker, except that that was a perfectly calculated shtick. He gave the 'Is our children learning?' speech like 6 times that day, it wasn't a one-off gaffe, it was an choreographed folksiness. Dishonest or merely overly practiced, what do you expect from a Prez nowadays? Not everyone knows what they look like from every angle.
Barack Obama is a dynamic public speaker and a very engaging personality. The obstructionist Congress has not allowed him to do much, the Supreme Court muddles along with only minimal support of the Obama agenda, his foreign policy is...uhh...let's say petulant. But he's still a gifted speaker and persona able to win back the American public at a moment's notice. I'm still not sure what Obamacare is or what it's gonna do (or if it's ever really gonna do anything) and I can't really think of anything else he's done, but he'll be an engaging personality for a few more decades in American life. And that'll matter a great deal in the historical perspective of the Obama administration.
But it also underlies my main point: though Cleveland and Roosevelt sought to create a more powerful presidency by side-stepping Congress to win mass approval, the Congress still controls the spending and the law-making, which are the real functions of gov't. And Congress can shut down a Prez no matter how popular or respected. The modern president is ubiquitous now (thanks to technological development) but only marginally more powerful than in the days of Benjamin Harrison. The Presidency is still a caretaker job with foreign policy implications.
Benjamin Harrison wanted more and he hounded Congress in a way rarely seen before. Teddy Roosevelt stumbles on the notion of reaching to the population through charisma, skipping Congress and going forth and acting like he runs the place. Here's the thing: he doesn't.
The Congress still very much runs everything in the same way Congress always did. Congress is the one that's putting down the deep influence on education, healthcare, taxes, financial regulation, labor laws, etc. not the Prez. The Prez is capable of funneling all of the Executive branch into a single personality, a single voice, a single charismatic character, a leader in a way that Congress simply cannot. But our founding father wanted the Presidency to be a foreign policy position (as exemplified by George Washington on Day #1) whose main domestic duty was controlling the military and keeping Congress from doing really dumb shit. The Prez was meant to be a retiring personality, who appeared only when necessary to perform only the most necessary task. But after Teddy Roosevelt, the populace expects the Prez to speak only to them and to tell them everything (as if that were even possible much less likely) and to give them what they want. The Prez's ability to actually give the people what they want is only marginally greater than it was in the 19th century, but the Prez's ability to look like he can and take credit/blame no matter what happens is vastly expanded. Our personal connection with a Prez (or antipathy toward his enemy, which I would suggest is a much more potent and pervasive force) has strengthened with the technology. The Prez's ability to produce a cult of personality is greater than ever but the Prez's ability to lead by fiat is still pretty minimal.
The Presidency is the same as the Presidency always was. Except its waaaaaaay louder now! We look at photos and videos of potential Presidents, we hear speeches, soundbites, debates and once they become Prez the press corps will expect a daily briefing. Public relations is pretty much 100% of the candidate's job because if he can't do that, he doesn't get to be Prez. It's not about foreign policy or judicial leanings, its about being more popular than the other douche bag on the first Tuesday in November. All those qualifications come later.
We think the office of the Prez is more powerful than it actually is. And while sometimes speeches can be powerful things, the Prez has an increasing amount of responsibility but a static amount of actual power.
I bring all this up because Monday night we'll have the opening debate between our latest presidential contenders: Donald Trump (reality show veteran) and Hillary Clinton (First Lady during the first daily press briefings in the White House). Is it any wonder that we look to the television to give us familiar faces to vote for? (To be honest, I must confess: say what you will about Trump, he is a showman and he's got me more interested in these debates than of any political debates of my lifetime) We want those faces to give us stuff. Too bad we keep looking to the wrong people.
As a recap, let's perform a Pascal experiment measuring Loudness and Likability.
Loud/Well-liked: TR, Wilson, FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
Loud/Not Well-liked: LBJ, Nixon, W Bush
Not Loud/Well-liked: Coolidge, Eisenhower
Not Loud/Not Well-liked: Taft, Harding, Hoover, Truman, Ford, Carter, HW Bush
Where is the advantage for a politician to not be loud? Forceful personalities that can survive the media burn are the only ones that can become well-liked leaders. Posterity is only for the future, we want the President to please us today. The fact that the Prez is ill-equipped to actually satisfy the citizenry in that way never really registers with the electorate. It just keeps voting for the guy that most think is the nicest, the least objectionable. And we fight each other to the death over it.
PS -- During the time period I've just gone over, one could argue that the single most powerful gov't employee of all was J. Edgar Hoover. Funny....I didn't mention him once.
