Rethinking Presidential Studies through Historical Research: Introduction

When George Edwards first proposed that we put together a special issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly to feature historical research, we were skeptical. We are of an age when the appearance of scholars raising the flag, rallying the troops, drawing lines, or claiming turf seems tiresome, and in this case, we thought the risk of backfire was especially high. For one thing, no group of scholars has exclusive claim to the study of presidential history. History is the common reservoir of material used by all, and since there is no escaping history in presidential studies, it is hard to cordon off a "historical approach" from any other. By the same token, there are large and significant differences of approach even among the scholars who do delve deeply into the past to gain traction on this subject. The two of us use history very differently, and it can hardly be said that we cover the range of tastes and perspectives. No tidy compilation will. Any selection is inevitably a partial representation, and likely for that reason to foment more dissension than solidarity among those who otherwise share a broad interest in considering the long duree and thinking about the patterns of change over time. Nonetheless, we were curious. The key decision to come out of our early discussion of George's proposal was to look to political scientists only now coming up through the ranks, scholars whose recently published work had made new inroads into historical understanding of the presidency. We sent out feelers asking a number of them if they had any new projects that might speak to the uses of history in presidential studies or any programmatic ideas to convey how historical insights bear on what is going on in other precincts of the field. The responses encouraged us to think about this special issue less as a collective statement about the historical agenda than as a survey of possibilities from a group of scholars likely to play a prominent role in shaping the future of the field. Reading through the articles, one quickly sees that they are not all of a piece. They do not all engage the literature in the rest of field in the same way: some use history to complicate and question common assumptions in the larger literature; others use history to deepen familiar themes and to redirect the research that elaborates upon them. Differences among the articles extend even to the interpretation of particular historical figures, drawing somewhat different lessons, for example, from James Madison's use of war powers. But all these articles are attuned to the larger field of which they are a part, to the fact that everyone in presidential studies is relying on history in one way or another, and to the potential of historical research to pry open the research agenda. None look to history as a reservoir of examples to confirm the conventional wisdom; all find leverage in history for rethinking it. The six contributors delve into different historical periods and pursue different issues to leverage new insights about the presidency. Benjamin Kleinerman highlights the importance of a president's constitutional ideas. He suggests that the Constitution has been perceived by presidents not as a set of conventional rules within which to play for power and accomplishment but as a fluid framework that can be shaped by personal conceptions of proper conduct. Kleinerman's subject is America's preeminent constitutionalist, James Madison. Becoming convinced during the Federalist era that the greatest threat to the Constitution was not the legislature but the executive, especially in its incentives for and powers of war making, Madison approached the war of 1812 differently than modern understandings of presidential power would recommend. Though often criticized as an unassertive and feckless commander in chief, Madison was, Kleinerman argues, deliberately attempting to establish a model of presidential restraint, demonstrating through his conduct how a president might lead a nation at war without doing violence to the values of republican constitutionalism. …