Dwight Eisenhower and the New Deal: The Politics of Preemption

Abstract

In The Politics That Presidents Make, Stephen Skowronek argues that presidents should be compared as a result of similarities in their historical/political circumstances rather than their proximate time in history. Specifically, Skowronek places presidents into a typology in which both strength of existing political regime (established by a previous president) and affiliation of president with or of president to existing regime arc considered. This typology produces four types of presidential politics: politics of reconstruction, politics of articulation, politics of disjunction, and politics of preemption.(1) Presidents who are opposed to vulnerable existing regimes have an opportunity to change political discourse and reconstruct American politics. Reconstructive presidents have most impact on American politics. Presidents who are affiliated with resilient regimes practice politics of articulation in which they hope to stoke fires of reconstructed rhetoric and coalitions with which they are affiliated. Presidents affiliated with vulnerable regimes are disjunctive presidents. Constrained by their affiliation with existing coalitions and programs which are being questioned and losing their relevance in broader political system, disjunctive presidents attempt to keep this faltering regime together. Finally, presidents practicing politics of preemption are opposed to resilient but in difficult position of searching for reconstructive opportunities where reconstruction is neither warranted by mandate nor sufficiently supported by segments of society. Using a historical approach, Skowronek explains ways in which a number of presidents fit into first three categories, but he gives little attention to politics of preemption. This relative neglect of preemptive presidents is unfortunate in that, being opposition leaders in resilient regimes, politics of preemption represents the most curious of all leadership situations,(2) How do leaders ascend to presidency if regime to which they are opposed is still strong? And, what are opportunities and limitations of presidents in this situation? Moreover, this neglect of politics of preemption is puzzling in that Skowronek's conclusions suggest that future of presidential politics will be dominated by preemptive presidents.(3) Certainly politics of preemption deserves more attention than it has received. I selected Dwight for several reasons. First, there is some controversy over relationship of to New Deal regime established by Franklin Roosevelt. And with a few notable exceptions, scholarship has ignored Eisenhower's motives in regard to New Deal as well as his eventual impact on New Deal regime.(4) Second, Skowronek is ambiguous about where fits in political time. Although he suggests that Eisenhower is, perhaps, most remarkable of preemptive leaders, Skowronek refuses to include among ranks of preemptive presidents. He opts instead to put with Presidents Coolidge and Cleveland as cases.(5) I argue that case is not hard at all. On contrary, is most successful of preemptive presidents. And third, as a result of his atypical success as a preemptive leader, case may provide a blueprint for President Clinton and perpetual string of preemptive presidents that Skowronek suggests will succeed him. and New Deal: A President in Political Time Many scholars have suggested that presidency made New Deal legitimate in American politics.(6) Prior to Eisenhower, Republican party, for most part, stood in to New Deal policies. V. O. Key, Jr. attributes acceptance of New Deal in Republican party to presidency. …