Two Bad Kings and Two Bad Presidents

One of the rewards for those engaged in presidential studies is the opportunity to rank presidents. Identifying great presidents is often the focus of this pastime. Asking questions such as which presidents were great and why is, of course, more than a diversion, as it provides a framework for analysis not only for the institution and for political development but also for the assessment of the roles of human agency and historical contingency in political action. As important, perhaps--and as engaging--is the identification of bad presidents. (1) Is their "badness" the polar opposite of "greatness"? Is badness easier or more difficult to define than greatness? Based on the insights found in Shakespeare's treatment of two bad kings, I identify two kinds of bad presidents and suggest that the relationship between great presidents and bad ones is a complex one that may lead us to revaluate what makes some presidents great. I Richard II and Richard III were kings, not presidents, and they governed in quite different political systems than their democratic counterparts. But they were chief executives who can provide us with models of bad leaders in extremis. Both had great difficulty establishing their authority. Both made several disastrous decisions. Both were challenged, defeated, and deposed without heirs. In Elizabethan political culture, both the public and elites were troubled by these two kings. Richard II was the only British monarch with unquestioned title to be overthrown. Richard III, portrayed as a "lurid king, hunchbacked, clad in blood-splattered velvet, forever gnawing his nether lip or grasping his dagger," already had an enduring place in English political demonology before Shakespeare's play (Saccio 1977, 158). In King Richard II and King Richard III, Shakespeare confronts concerns about both kings and asks, why were they bad and how were they bad? Despite reigning for 22 years, Richard II faced two major challenges to his crown. A group of nobles who called themselves the Lord Appellants demanded that he accept collective rule. When Richard refused, the Appellants defeated the king's forces. Richard was briefly imprisoned until he agreed to permit Parliament to resolve the dispute. The Merciless Parliament of 1388 sided with the earls. The court was purged of Richard's supporters, and the Lords Appellants took their place. A year later, Richard, now 22, successfully reasserted his authority. Though Richard initially governed more cautiously, in 1397, he struck back at the Lord Appellants, executing the Earl of Arundel, exiling Warwick, and (possibly) assassinating Gloucester. After the seizure of his estates, Henry Bolingbroke returned from exile and defeated the king's forces. Richard was captured, taunted by crowds on his way back to London, forced to abdicate, and died (probably assassinated) in captivity. Throughout his reign, Richard II created a costly court, awarding new dukedoms to his supporters with seeming abandon. This extravagance led to the first rebellion by the Lord Appellants, and while Richard promised austerity, he soon reverted to his earlier habits. This style of governance was appropriate for Richard, as he regarded himself as "the deputy elected by the Lord." (2) He was well aware, however, of the necessity for funding, which was one of the reasons he left to command an army in Ireland at the very moment he struck back at the Lord Appellants. Richard himself states, "We will ourselves in person to this war, and our coffers with too great a court/and liberal largess are grown somewhat light" (83). The Ireland expedition was only one of Richard II's decisions that led to his overthrow. Shakespeare begins his play with a dispute between Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk. Both had accused the other of treason. Richard let the quarrel continue for nine months before he canceled a scheduled duel at the last minute and instead banished both parties. …