Study questions for first section of Skowronek reading:

--Because of the breadth of material—and also since he’s a political scientist rather than a historian—Skowronek eschews the use of primary sources. How much does that affect your reading of his work?

--Some critics have argued that Skowronek’s approach of treating the office of the presidency as essentially the same throughout history isn’t legitimate. What do you think?

--One of the most original arguments of this book comes in S’s claim that a President’s power to implement a new type of political regime is actually less now than, say, in the era of Thomas Jefferson. What sort of evidence does S have for this claim; and were you convinced by it?

--Do Presidents actually make politics, in the sense of how we understand the word “make”?

--This obviously is a state-centered history (S is part of a group of political scientists organized around Harvard’s Theda Skopcol, author of a book called Bringing the State Back In). Does he overestimate the role of the state—i.e, how do non-party interests groups, including business, fit into the S analysis?

--What, precisely, does S mean by the term “presidential regime”?

--This is a book that goes to great lengths to measure “leadership”—but exactly what tools exist for historians to measure and evaluate this concept?

--Does S reject a “periodization scheme” approach too hastily (p.5)? What and the strengths and weaknesses of his decision to follow this course?

--In the S framework, what are the differences between “power” and “authority”?

--What are the political parameters of a President’s place in history? Does S underestimate the constraints that President face—or do you think he’s right that Presidents always have leeway to make their own politics? Why?

--Do you agree with S (p. 20) that the powers of the presidency are inherently contradictory—namely, the power to disrupt and the power to execute government policy? And do you think he overstates the “disruptive” power? What’s the evidence for your conclusion?

--Does the S model leave enough room for interpreting presidential personalities—i.e., the individual nature of specific Presidents? Is the approach too schematic?

--This book was written before 9/11—did the attacks change political culture enough to give the President more leeway to act?

--Is S right that, in the end, it’s the ‘elites who do the changing” in the United States (p. 48)?

--Does S actually force Presidents into pre-conceived boxes, underestimating their differences? Is Eisenhower, for example, really so different from Truman before him or Kennedy after, apart from a difference in party label?

--Where does the American party system fit into the S scheme? Congress and the courts?

--What do you consider the biggest strength and most important weakness of the S thesis?