Evaluating presidents is one of the best-loved games in American politics, but it is also a game played without clear standards. Evaluation requires comparison, and a president is usually compared to other presidents. Presidents have much in common with one another, but there are also differences. Brace and Hinckley emphasize the importance of the office over the individual in it. They also see the importance of specific influences, which vary from administration to administration:
It is only when we separate out, or control for, these multiple influences that we can begin to see how each president worked within the uneasy balance of the office (Brace and Hinckley 11).
Some presidents have been highly successful in dealing with the office and with Congress. Ronald Reagan was perceived as a highly effective inspirational leader. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed through huge programs to address the problems of the Great Depression and showed strength as a managerial leader. Dwight Eisenhower was seen more as a caretaker. The question is often whether the leadership style fits the times.
The recent emphasis on character as a guide to presidential performance is only the most recent attempt to find a characteristic that can be used to evaluate the qualities of effective presidents, and the difficulty of doing this shows how varied the requirements placed on and the activities performed by presidents really are. Some of the powers of the president are formal and some are inherent. Formal powers derive from the Constitution, and inherent powers derive from the office and the job itself. Even if we assume that presidents all have the same formal and inherent powers, different presidents will use these powers in different ways. The primary quality of an effective president is to use his powers effectively at the time this action is required by circumstances. A president is effective when he gets things done, but this...