Wrapping Up Presidents and Their Advisers
I'm glad that I had the opportunity to wrap up the series on Presidents and their Advisers this month. (Incidentally, if you're like me and wonder if "adviser" or "advisor" is correct, I'm told by one internet source that both are correct, though adviser is used more generally to mean someone who is giving advice and advisor is more commonly used when it means the primary role such as job title. Even with that explanation, I'm not sure which is more correct in this context.)
It was interesting to see the transition over time from how the early presidents relied on their closest advisers for advice about governing, to how the more modern presidents looked more for political advice. This generalization may not be correct however. George Washington looked to Alexander jHamilton, who was as much a politician as he was an administrator. A number of presidents looked to men who would be their political successors as well as their principal cabinet officers (e.g. Jefferson and Madison, Madison and Monroe, Monroe and JQ Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Taft.) Though it may be appealing to romanticize about the good old days when good governance trumped politics, I don't think politics were ever really that far removed from the picture.
When Martin Van Buren served as Secretary of State and Vice-President to Andrew Jackson, he was still "the little magician", a nickname given to the man from Kinderhook not for his ability to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but for his political skills in getting out the vote and in delivering what was then the largest state in the union for his candidate. While Mark Hanna had a distinguished career in the senate, he was also the brains behind the machine that elected William McKinley to the presidency twice, and who knew how to find the money for a campaign.
Over time the job of being president has grown, and successful presidents have had to divide the responsibilities of governing and of political expediency. James K. Polk tried to micromanage the presidency and it aged him and almost certainly shortened his life. Modern presidents have a political adviser, as well as "smart guys" in the fields of foreign affairs, national security and the treasury or budget. They also have a chief of staff who keeps them organized and who serves as gatekeeper for those wanting the president's time. It has been interesting to see which presidents have placed emphasis on which of those spheres. Calvin Coolidge focused on the budget, and so Herbert Lord was probably his main go-to guy. Nixon counted on Henry Kissinger for foreign affairs, shutting out his own secretary of state in the process. He counted on Haldeman and Erhlichman on the political front, with disastrous consequences.
Then there are those presidents who trusted family members for their best advice. In this category fall such examples as two Massachusetts Presidents: John Adams, who counted most closely on the counsel of his wife Abigail, and John F. Kennedy, who counted on his brother Robert to watch his back.
Recent presidents have required a wise political operative before they could do anything else. For Clinton it was James Carville, for George W. Bush it was Karl Rove, and for Barack Obama it was David Axelrod. Each of these advisers did their job in getting their man a second term, and each lost importance after that second term was secured.
In terms of what lessons can be learned from all of this, it is difficult to spot a clear pattern. Presidents who have a clear interest and vision in a particular field, whether it is in economics, world affairs or some domestic agenda, will steer their own ship and will look for someone who is both loyal and is a doer. They will look for knowledgeable visionaries in the other fields. But always, the successful presidents will have a political genius to get and keep them in the white house, and to offer advise in policy making that does not undermine the political goals.
Do we live in an age of political expediency? Almost certainly. Is this something that has evolved over time, or has it always been there? Aside from George Washington, I would submit that since that first contested election of Adams v. Jefferson, successful presidents have realized that all the most noble ideas and lofty goals mean little if the president can't win election and re-election. Would Hillary Clinton have won the Presidency in 2008 if she had David Axelrod and Barack Obama had Mark Penn running their respective campaigns? My guess is yes. What's your opinion?
It was interesting to see the transition over time from how the early presidents relied on their closest advisers for advice about governing, to how the more modern presidents looked more for political advice. This generalization may not be correct however. George Washington looked to Alexander jHamilton, who was as much a politician as he was an administrator. A number of presidents looked to men who would be their political successors as well as their principal cabinet officers (e.g. Jefferson and Madison, Madison and Monroe, Monroe and JQ Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Taft.) Though it may be appealing to romanticize about the good old days when good governance trumped politics, I don't think politics were ever really that far removed from the picture.
When Martin Van Buren served as Secretary of State and Vice-President to Andrew Jackson, he was still "the little magician", a nickname given to the man from Kinderhook not for his ability to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but for his political skills in getting out the vote and in delivering what was then the largest state in the union for his candidate. While Mark Hanna had a distinguished career in the senate, he was also the brains behind the machine that elected William McKinley to the presidency twice, and who knew how to find the money for a campaign.
Over time the job of being president has grown, and successful presidents have had to divide the responsibilities of governing and of political expediency. James K. Polk tried to micromanage the presidency and it aged him and almost certainly shortened his life. Modern presidents have a political adviser, as well as "smart guys" in the fields of foreign affairs, national security and the treasury or budget. They also have a chief of staff who keeps them organized and who serves as gatekeeper for those wanting the president's time. It has been interesting to see which presidents have placed emphasis on which of those spheres. Calvin Coolidge focused on the budget, and so Herbert Lord was probably his main go-to guy. Nixon counted on Henry Kissinger for foreign affairs, shutting out his own secretary of state in the process. He counted on Haldeman and Erhlichman on the political front, with disastrous consequences.
Then there are those presidents who trusted family members for their best advice. In this category fall such examples as two Massachusetts Presidents: John Adams, who counted most closely on the counsel of his wife Abigail, and John F. Kennedy, who counted on his brother Robert to watch his back.
Recent presidents have required a wise political operative before they could do anything else. For Clinton it was James Carville, for George W. Bush it was Karl Rove, and for Barack Obama it was David Axelrod. Each of these advisers did their job in getting their man a second term, and each lost importance after that second term was secured.
In terms of what lessons can be learned from all of this, it is difficult to spot a clear pattern. Presidents who have a clear interest and vision in a particular field, whether it is in economics, world affairs or some domestic agenda, will steer their own ship and will look for someone who is both loyal and is a doer. They will look for knowledgeable visionaries in the other fields. But always, the successful presidents will have a political genius to get and keep them in the white house, and to offer advise in policy making that does not undermine the political goals.
Do we live in an age of political expediency? Almost certainly. Is this something that has evolved over time, or has it always been there? Aside from George Washington, I would submit that since that first contested election of Adams v. Jefferson, successful presidents have realized that all the most noble ideas and lofty goals mean little if the president can't win election and re-election. Would Hillary Clinton have won the Presidency in 2008 if she had David Axelrod and Barack Obama had Mark Penn running their respective campaigns? My guess is yes. What's your opinion?