Season 1, Episode 10 | Myth of the Modern Presidency: The Office Since TR

What happened to the presidency around the turn of the 20th century? How did it go from being a strong institution under leaders like Washington and Lincoln to one that progressives saw as weak and ineffective? Could it be that the rapid changes of the Progressive Era revealed cracks in the system? What was it that so frustrated these thinkers, prompting them to call for a powerful transformation of the office?

In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon chats with Jordan Cash, an assistant professor at James Madison College, about the fascinating evolution of the presidency during the Progressive Era. They unpack Roosevelt’s stewardship theory, Wilson’s “Darwinian” approach to government, and the shift from seeing the presidency as a static institution to recognizing the dynamic potential of individual leaders. From the creation of the Executive Office of the President to the ongoing struggle of balancing power and constitutional principles, this conversation connects the dots between then and now.

Curious about how the presidency became what it is today—and where it’s headed? Hit play and join the conversation!

In This Episode

• (00:01:16) Guest Introduction
• (00:01:51) Progressive Era Concerns
• (00:03:14) Woodrow Wilson's Views
• (00:06:15) Stewardship Theory Explained
• (00:08:31) Roosevelt's View on Limits
• (00:10:31) Roosevelt's Decision to Leave Office
• (00:11:49) Roosevelt vs.Taft
• (00:13:49) Roosevelt's Larger-than-Life Persona
• (00:14:39) The Progressive View of the Presidency
• (00:15:24) Shift in Presidential Power
• (00:15:51) Wilson's Ambition for Presidential Power
• (00:16:55) Cabinet Government Proposal
• (00:17:29) Wilson's Early Thoughts on Governance
• (00:19:21) Changing Dynamics of Political Parties
• (00:19:59) Historical Context of Presidential Influence
• (00:23:07) Evolution of Party Primaries
• (00:24:59) Constitutional Impediments to Power
• (00:26:22) Brownlow Committee and Presidential Capacity
• (00:27:35) Creation of the Executive Office
• (00:28:45) Expansion of Presidential Power during Crises
• (00:31:07) Reorganizing the Executive Branch
• (00:31:49) Administrative Capacity vs. Functionality
• (00:32:56) Continuity in Presidential Roles
• (00:34:31) Constitutional Foundations of the Presidency
• (00:35:48) The Impact of Government Size

Notable Quotes

• [00:19:21] "It feels like the 20th century, with its new sort of ground in executive leadership, gave us more interesting, more colorful characters." — Matthew Brogdon
• [00:29:39] "The administration now becomes so big and in some ways loses that connection of responsibility to the president because there are just so many moving pieces that it's hard to keep track." — Jordan Cash
• [00:31:49] "Do we now have so much administrative capacity that we're in a position where the president still can't achieve his proper functions?" — Jordan Cash
• [00:35:48] "So we have a bigger presidency because we've got a bigger government essentially." — Matthew Brogdon

Our Guest

Jordan Cash is an assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at James Madison College, Michigan State University. A passionate presidency scholar, he’s written insightful works like The Isolated Presidency and Adding the Lone Star: John Tyler, Sam Houston, and the Annexation of Texas. With expertise in the presidency and political institutions, Jordan also offers a deep dive into congressional history, making him a go-to source for understanding the inner workings of American governance.

Transcript

Matthew Brogdon [00:00:37 - 00:01:16]
 Welcome to This Constitution. I'm Matthew Brogdon, and I'm joined today by a very special guest. Jordan Cash is an assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at the James Madison College at Michigan State University. He's also a presidency scholar who's published several notable works, including The Isolated Presidency and The Lone Star: John Tyler, Sam Houston, and the Annexation of Texas. Today, he's here to talk to us about the modern presidency. Jordan, welcome to the podcast.

Jordan Cash [00:01:16 - 00:01:18]
 Thank you so much for having me.

Matthew Brogdon [00:01:18 - 00:01:51]
 The term "modern presidency" suggests that something significant has changed about the office, particularly since the Progressive Era in the early 1900s. Many felt the presidency was too weak, which might surprise listeners familiar with towering figures like Washington and Lincoln. What was it about the presidency at that time that progressives found deficient?

Jordan Cash [00:01:51 - 00:02:43]
 Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were concerned about the lack of decisive executive action from presidents like Benjamin Harrison, Chester Arthur, and Rutherford B. Hayes. Compared to transformative leaders like Washington and Lincoln, these "Gilded Age" presidents seemed lackluster. Political scientists like Woodrow Wilson argued that the separation of powers constrained presidential authority, preventing the United States from achieving its policy goals. Progressives believed that the constitutional framework was based on outdated mechanistic concepts of power, which needed to evolve to allow for a more dynamic and active presidency.

Matthew Brogdon [00:02:43 - 00:03:14]
 To put a face to some of these ideas, you mentioned Woodrow Wilson. He often compared the Constitution to a Newtonian mechanism, like a well-oiled watch. What did he mean by that?

Jordan Cash [00:03:14 - 00:05:10]
 Wilson argued that the framers of the Constitution viewed political power as mechanical, operating like a clock or watch once set in motion. They believed the system's design—checks and balances, separation of powers—would function perpetually without much adjustment. Wilson critiqued this as an outdated view of governance. Instead, he proposed a "Darwinian" perspective, seeing government as an organic entity that evolves. He believed the presidency, like the government as a whole, needed to adapt to modern challenges, moving past the rigid structures of the Constitution to create a more efficient, effective system.

Matthew Brogdon [00:05:10 - 00:05:42]
 That’s a fascinating perspective, especially emphasizing evolution and adaptability. Roosevelt took this idea further with his stewardship theory, which you've touched on. What makes his approach so distinct?

Jordan Cash [00:05:42 - 00:07:06]
 In his autobiography, Roosevelt outlined the stewardship theory: the president acts as a steward of the people, empowered to do anything for the public good unless explicitly prohibited by law or the Constitution. This was a departure from earlier views where presidential power derived primarily from constitutional authority. Roosevelt saw the Constitution not as an empowering document but as one that set boundaries. He believed the president's power came from the people, making the president accountable for acting decisively in their interest unless explicitly constrained by law.

Matthew Brogdon [00:07:06 - 00:08:31]
 This perspective raises a question: what did Roosevelt see as the constitutional or legal limits of presidential power?

Jordan Cash [00:08:31 - 00:09:44]
 Roosevelt acknowledged explicit limits like the need for Senate consent to ratify treaties or appoint certain officials. Beyond these explicit restrictions, he believed in a presumption of presidential action—essentially, the president could act unless explicitly barred by the Constitution or laws. This approach flipped the conventional view of presidential power, emphasizing proactive governance driven by the public good rather than passive adherence to enumerated powers.

Matthew Brogdon [00:09:44 - 00:11:16]
 Roosevelt’s stewardship theory contrasts sharply with his successor, William Howard Taft. Taft's approach seems almost like a reaction against Roosevelt’s expansive view of presidential power. Could you elaborate on that?

Jordan Cash [00:11:16 - 00:13:32]
 Absolutely. Taft viewed the presidency through a more traditional lens, rooted in constitutional and legal frameworks. He believed that the president could act only when explicitly authorized by the Constitution or laws. Roosevelt, however, criticized Taft as overly constrained, even associating him with the so-called "Buchanan-Taft school," which Roosevelt equated with weakness and inaction. While Taft respected the Constitution as an empowering document, he rejected Roosevelt's idea of using ambiguity to expand presidential authority.

Matthew Brogdon [00:13:32 - 00:14:39]
 Roosevelt’s critique of Taft even associates him with James Buchanan, who is often remembered for his inaction during the secession crisis. Roosevelt paints a stark contrast, likening himself to Lincoln and casting Taft as weak and overly legalistic. How fair was Roosevelt’s comparison?

Jordan Cash [00:14:39 - 00:15:33]
 It’s not fair at all. Roosevelt describes Taft as part of the "Buchanan-Taft school," suggesting they are overly cautious and constrained by constitutional limits. However, Taft did not see the Constitution as a purely limiting document. Instead, he viewed it as empowering, provided the president could justify their actions constitutionally or legally. Roosevelt’s characterization of Taft as overly passive was likely an exaggeration meant to elevate his stewardship theory.

Matthew Brogdon [00:15:33 - 00:17:29]
 That comparison highlights an important evolution in how presidents were perceived—not just as institutional figures but as individual leaders. Wilson’s perspective on presidential leadership further develops this idea. He envisioned a president as a national leader who shapes public opinion and sets the legislative agenda. Could you explain how Wilson sought to institutionalize this vision, particularly with his idea of cabinet government?

Jordan Cash [00:17:29 - 00:19:21]
 Wilson believed the separation of powers created inefficiencies in governance. Early in his career, he suggested moving toward a parliamentary system to consolidate executive and legislative authority. As president, he proposed a "cabinet government" model, where members of his cabinet—drawn from Congress—would work closely with congressional committees to align legislative and executive actions. This reflected his belief that the president, as the singular representative of the people, should guide the government’s direction and unify its efforts, effectively overcoming the fragmentation caused by the separation of powers.

Matthew Brogdon [00:19:21 - 00:21:17]
 Wilson’s vision of leadership was ambitious, emphasizing the president’s role as a unifier and agenda-setter. He seemed to argue that the president should shape the party rather than be shaped by it. How does this differ from earlier examples like Lincoln or Jackson?

Jordan Cash [00:21:17 - 00:22:34]
 Wilson’s approach differed in its emphasis on the president’s individuality. Figures like Jackson and Lincoln relied on their parties for support and platforms. Jackson brought popularity and charisma, while the Democratic Party provided him with a cohesive agenda. Similarly, Lincoln rose to prominence through the Republican Party’s structure and support. Wilson, however, believed the president should dominate the party, setting its agenda and driving its policies. This shift laid the groundwork for the modern image of the president as both a national and a partisan leader.

Matthew Brogdon [00:22:34 - 00:24:59]
 The shift from party-dominated leadership to personality-driven leadership arguably changed the type of individuals who became president. James Bryce once wrote about why "great men" didn’t often ascend to the presidency in the 19th century. What changed in the 20th century to allow for more prominent and colorful figures like Roosevelt, Wilson, and beyond?

Jordan Cash [00:24:59 - 00:26:22]
 Bryce observed that the party system often elevated candidates based on electability rather than charisma or bold leadership. However, the gradual evolution of the primary system, combined with a growing emphasis on the president as a popular leader, shifted this dynamic. By the 20th century, voters had more direct influence in selecting candidates, favoring larger-than-life personalities who could inspire and command attention. This change facilitated the rise of figures like Roosevelt and Wilson, whose appeal extended beyond traditional party structures.

Matthew Brogdon [00:26:22 - 00:28:45]
 While the evolution of the presidency brought more dynamic leadership, it also raised questions about institutional balance. FDR’s New Deal and the creation of the Executive Office of the President significantly expanded presidential capacities. How did this transformation address the challenges of modern governance?

Jordan Cash [00:28:45 - 00:30:46]
 FDR’s administration faced unprecedented crises—the Great Depression and World War II—that demanded robust executive action. To manage this, the Brownlow Committee recommended creating the Executive Office of the President, providing the president with a centralized administrative structure. This office enabled the president to oversee an expanding federal government and coordinate policy implementation more efficiently. However, this growth also raised concerns about over-centralization and the challenges of managing an increasingly complex administrative state.

Matthew Brogdon [00:30:46 - 00:32:55]
 The establishment of the Executive Office of the President was a significant institutional innovation. Did it achieve its goal of making the presidency more effective, or did it create new challenges?

Jordan Cash [00:32:55 - 00:34:39]
 It achieved its goal to some extent by streamlining decision-making and giving the president greater administrative capacity. For leaders like FDR, who excelled at managing complex systems, it worked well. However, as the federal government expanded, managing the vast bureaucracy became increasingly difficult for subsequent presidents. By the late 20th century, concerns emerged about an "imperiled presidency," where the administrative state had grown so large and insulated that it hindered presidential control. This dynamic demonstrates the ongoing tension between institutional efficiency and executive manageability.

Matthew Brogdon [00:34:39 - 00:36:22]
 The Brownlow Committee’s reforms were rooted in the idea that the Constitution envisioned a strong presidency, yet many critics argue the modern presidency represents a departure from constitutional principles. How do you reconcile this evolution with the original intent of the framers?

Jordan Cash [00:36:22 - 00:38:17]
 There’s certainly been an evolution, but I’d argue it’s more a difference in degree than in kind. The framers designed the presidency to be energetic and responsive, with substantial authority over administration, legislation, and foreign policy. What’s changed is the scale of governance, which has amplified the president’s role. Even the Brownlow Committee framed its recommendations as enabling the president to fulfill constitutional responsibilities effectively. So, while the modern presidency looks different, its foundational principles remain grounded in the Constitution.

Matthew Brogdon [00:38:17 - 00:40:02]
 This perspective challenges the notion that we’ve abandoned the framers’ vision. Instead, it suggests the presidency has adapted to meet the demands of a larger and more complex government. Does this mean the modern presidency is fundamentally compatible with the Constitution?

Jordan Cash [00:40:02 - 00:41:49]
 Yes, but it requires careful management. The Constitution provides the framework for presidential authority, but how that authority is exercised depends on the individual president and the political context. The modern presidency reflects an effort to balance the framers’ vision with the realities of a global superpower. While it’s compatible with the Constitution, maintaining that balance demands vigilance to prevent overreach or inefficiency.

Matthew Brogdon [00:41:49 - 00:42:22]
 Thank you for joining us today and helping us unpack the evolution of the presidency. It’s been a fascinating discussion.

Jordan Cash [00:42:22 - 00:42:59]
 Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure.

Outro [00:42:59 - 00:43:22]
 We’re just beginning to explore the rich legacy of America’s Constitution. If today’s discussion deepened your understanding, share this episode with a friend or student and subscribe to continue learning with us. For more insights and exclusive content, visit uvu.edu. This Constitution is brought to you by the UVU Center for Constitutional Studies, home to Utah’s Civic Thought and Leadership Initiative.