In The Myth of Presidential Representation, B. Dan Wood evaluates the nature of American presidential representation, examining the strongly embedded belief - held by the country's founders, as well as current American political culture and social science theory - that presidents should represent the community at large. Citizens expect presidents to reflect prevailing public sentiment and compromise in the national interest. Social scientists express these same ideas through theoretical models depicting presidential behavior as driven by centrism and issue stances adhering to the median voter. Yet partisanship seems to be a dominant theme of modern American politics. Do American presidents adhere to a centrist model of representation as envisioned by the founders? Or, do presidents typically attempt to lead the public toward their own more partisan positions? If so, how successful are they? What are the consequences of centrist versus partisan presidential representation? The Myth of Presidential Representation addresses these questions both theoretically and empirically.
|Publisher:||Cambridge University Press|
|Product dimensions:||6.20(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.90(d)|
Table of Contents
1. The nature of presidential representation; 2. The centrist and partisan theories of presidential representation; 3. Measuring mass preferences and presidential issue stances; 4. Evaluating the centrist vs. partisan models of presidential representation; 5. Presidential persuasion and the mass public; 6. Centrism, partisanship, and public approval of the president's job performance; 7. The efficacy for American democracy of non-centrist, partisan presidential representation.