Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2015
The need to recognize institutional limits on presidents' abilities to translate their campaign promises into concrete public policy is a central theme characterizing much of the presidency literature during the past decade (Barger, 1984; Cronin, 1980; Hinckley, 1985; Light, 1983). Scholars have argued that the so-called “text-book presidency” (Cronin, 1980) paints an unrealistic picture of presidential power within the confines of a Madisonian framework of separated powers and checks and balances. Others have said that this unrealistic vision has contributed to the “cult of the presidency” (Hinckley, 1985), which is reinforced by the political socialization process and the media, thus leading to the “no-win” (Light, 1983) or “impossible” (Barger, 1984) presidencies. The notion of a plural executive, whose powers are fragmented throughout our Madisonian system has grown in popularity (King and Ragsdale, 1988). As a part of their recommendations for reform, virtually all of these authors emphasize correctly the potential role to be played by educators in imparting a more realistic understanding of the limitations of presidential power and outlining the potential consequences of hero worshipping for the occupant of the Oval Office. This article suggests an approach to teaching the presidency that rejects the notion that the president is the most important actor in the American political system. Instead, I will argue that we need to ask our students to consider the President as one actor in a highly fragmented political system, and to develop a more realistic view of both the sources and uses of presidential power within the broader context of democratic accountability and the development of citizenship.