Jockeying for the American Presidency: The Political Opportunism of Aspirants
If there is one book to read to follow and make sense of the presidential election, it is Dr.
Faculty and Staff | Villanova University
In her groundbreaking book, Dr. Brown called long ago what pundits are saying today. As was mentioned earlier, it may be that depth of experience promotes rigidity because an aspirant is forced to react to fewer challenges and greater redundancies, whereas more breadth of experience encourages more flexibility and resiliency because an aspirant is asked to react to novelty and competition.
It may also be that those who are more innately opportunistic—perceptive, creative, adaptable—self-select into more positions, thus pursuing more breadth and less depth in their careers. Learn more about Jockeying for the American Presidency and read the rave reviews this book has earned. Jockeying for the American Presidency by Lara M. Brown George Washington University.
Jockeying for the American Presidency
Brown also served in President William J. See also 5 Must-Read Books for the Election. See the Cambria Press website for more books.
Presidential Selection and Aspirant Opportunism. As previously mentioned, the opportunism of the presidents most probably varies across the individuals who have held the office. Aside from innate character differences and aptitudes, each president acquired his opportunistic abilities from a unique set of professional and political experiences e. Through trial and error as well as observation and imitation, they discovered which behaviors and attitudes—personal style—worked best for them in the political arena. Further, each president is likely to exploit opportunities in the ways that are most suitable to his time.
Thus, although opportunism is a common trait among the presidents, it does not always show itself in a similar manner. Still, the estimates reveal that these personal characteristics breadth of experience, opportunism, etc. That said, the presidential selection method does not appear to be working as it had in the past—in terms of favoring experienced aspirants—and this may be a cause for concern. The institutions they created, although they continuously changed, persisted because each presidential aspirant developed structures, procedures, and networks to help him win.
The structures that they built to communicate a persuasive message and move people to the polls became more sophisticated over time as more people were included in the political process. Clinton, and George W.
Faculty and Staff
These stories reveal that whereas these modern aspirants exhibited opportunistic behaviors resilience, tenacity, flexibility, etc. This chapter investigates three high-profile presidential losers one from each of the three political eras: These cases were chosen because they involved experienced, credible aspirants who lost elections that were competitive and closely decided. In short, they could have won, but they did not.
Hence, these losers appear to have created opportunities for the winners to win. First, aspirant opportunism abounded. Throughout the nomination contests, the front-runners were looking for ways to game the rules, crafting their rhetoric to appeal to subsets of voters they were targeting, and adapting, imitating, and improvising their strategies on the fly. Third, until the economic collapse, the boosts of momentum that the different candidates enjoyed, particularly during the nomination contests, were surprisingly moderate.
They were more ephemeral than in campaigns past, suggesting perhaps how successful many of these aspirants were in prodding their supporters to challenge the national media memes on the Internet and to engage in local activities—whether they were meet-ups, rallies, or town halls—and thus alter the state of the race. Although their constituency is all of America, their electoral success is achieved through partisan and federal structures. Lastly, while eliminating the Electoral College may satisfy the aims of some reformers, it may also prove detrimental to not only the quality of the aspirants fielded and the presidents selected, but also to the security of the nation and the stability of its constitutional design.
Thus, as the Framers understood, a presidential selection process is inextricably connected to executive power— altering the method changes the authority—and to neglect this in the study of the presidency is imprudent and may even be foolhardy. Follow her on Twitter: Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly.
Brown, and Zim Nwokora 1. Pathways to the Nomination: An Analytic Framework Zim Nwokora 2. Presidential Mandates and the Leadership Dilemma: Bush, and Barack Obama Julia Azari 3.
Jockeying for the American Presidency: The Political Opportunism of Aspirants
Clinton and George W. The Base Realignment and Closing Commission: Copeland and Victoria A. Taking Credit and Avoiding Blame: Marshall, and Deanna Watts 8. President Obama and Counterterrorism Policy: You Have 0 Item s In Cart. Click on image to enlarge. Related Titles The Silence of Congress. Socratic Rationalism and Political Philosophy.