Polls and Elections: Character and Political Time as Sources of Presidential Greatness

Presidency scholars have long debated whether a president's personal traits or the historical circumstances of their presidency have a bigger effect on presidential performance. Stephen Skowronek (1993, 2008) argues that the political conditions a president faces, what he calls "political time," largely defines the president's opportunities and challenges. In contrast, others argue that presidents' personal traits (e.g., personality, political skill, vision, communication skills) profoundly shape presidential behavior (e.g., Barber 1972; Greenstein 2009; Renshon 1996; Wayne 2012). We contribute to this debate by examining whether historical conditions (political time) and two important personal traits (brilliance and character) relate to president's standing in polls of "presidential greatness." We find that both historical conditions and personal traits significantly predict historical evaluations of presidents. We provide novel evidence that presidential character affects presidential greatness. Although many have found that scandals tend to lower presidents' standing in the historical polls (e.g., Cohen 2003; Nichols 2012; Simonton 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2006), we show that more nuanced differences in character predict historical judgments. Although many have claimed that character is central to effective presidential leadership (e.g., Gergen 2000; Renshon 1996; Wayne 2012; Wilson 1995), Wayne (2012, 3) argues that "unfortunately, the study of character is one of the least analyzed aspects of presidential behavior," partly because such study often precludes the use of quantitative analyses favored by most political scientists. Our analysis is far from a complete statement on the relationship between character and presidential behavior, but it provides some systematic evidence supporting the claim that character (or at least perceptions of it) matters for the presidency. At the same time, the historical context in which presidents serve powerfully shapes their current standing. Our results provide insight into one of the field's core debates and contribute to the literature examining greatness ratings (in addition to Simoton's works cited above, see, e.g., Balz 2010; Cohen 2003; Curry and Morris 2010; McCann 1992, 1995, 2005; Nichols 2012; Simon and Uscinski 2012). These ratings provide one measure of presidents' legacies. Because "speculation about how presidential actions will be viewed by future generations weighs heavily on the minds of chief executives," knowing what predicts historical views of greatness may affect current presidential behavior (Panagaopoulos 2012, 719). In the next section, we review the literature on presidential greatness polls and explain why character, brilliance, and political time may shape presidents' scores in these polls. We then describe our data and methods, both of which build strongly on previous work. We present our results and then draw conclusions. The Roots of Greatness Presidency scholars, indeed students of leadership in general, have long tried to identify what makes a great leader. (1) Most of these studies have focused on biographical and historical materials, the best relying on careful qualitative analysis to marshal detailed, nuanced accounts of the great and not so great presidents (e.g., Barber 1972; Landy and Milkis 2001; Felzenberg 2008). Other studies examined the collected evaluations of various groups of "experts" asked to assess the presidents in different ways. Since Arthur Schlesinger (1948) first polled 55 experts (mostly historians), several individuals and organizations have followed suit, asking different collections of experts to evaluate presidents. Scholars have long discussed, critiqued, and analyzed these ratings. Critics argue that the ratings are biased by the raters' ideology or partisanship (Felzenberg 2008; Lindgren and Calabresi 2000; Uscinski and Simon 2011; but see Bose 2003, 8-9, and Murray and Blessing 1994), that the ratings tell us more about the raters than presidents, and that the ratings are generally "not very rigorous" (Pfiffner 2003, 23; see also Felzenberg 2008). …