Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The study of the presidency would appear to be relatively simple. The sample population is relatively small, their performance is, for the most part, recorded and like the weather, it seems everyone has opinions about them. In reviewing current literature discussing presidential greatness, most historians and political scientists have generally looked to answer two questions: 1) Who were our greatest, and; 2) How should all be rank ordered? For the last 65+ years, presidential polls have been the main vehicle used to answer these questions. In doing so, researchers have generally reached out to the public and asked them to rank order the presidents from greatest to worst. The results at the top and bottom of these surveys have been relatively consistent. While the specific order may vary, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are generally viewed as the best; with the likes of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding at or near the bottom of the rankings. As for the rest, they usually fit into one of four categories -- the near great, the average, the below average, or failures, with the one-term presidents who failed to be reelected normally being rated in the lower categories. This would seem to make sense, because they are often viewed as failed presidents. However, as surprising as it may seem, of the 43 men who have served as President of the United States, only fourteen were reelected and went on to serve past their initial term. Ten were defeated in their bid for a second term. Five failed in their attempt to win their party’s nomination to run for reelection and seven opted not to run for reelection. Additionally, five of the seven who died while in office, died during their first term and were not afforded the opportunity to run for a second term. It does not appear that any scholarly work has been done to collectively look at this group who make up a full third of the presidential population. This represents a sizable gap in political thinking to be rectified.

The ongoing disregard for the American vice presidency, and for those who would and do hold the office, in conjunction with the scarcity of academic research devoted specifically to the development of the institution, warrants the following study. Indeed, this study is relatively novel to the existent body of political science research which ventures to evaluate the vice presidency. Generally, research and publications on the vice presidency have tended to focus on variables such as ticket-balancing and home-state advantage; critiques of individual vice presidents; and more recently, specific policy spheres where modern vice presidents have been involved. In contrast, this project is devoted exclusively to isolating the institutional markers that have increased the broad utility of the position of vice president of the United States and, in the process, have augmented the development of the vice-presidential institution. These institutional markers include augmentation by precedent, statute, and constitutional amendment; increases in the resources made available to the institution; the addition of institutional identifiers; and the gradual accumulation of policy portfolios and responsibilities assigned to vice presidents. Underscoring each of the preceding institutional markers has been the vital role specific presidents have played in facilitating the development of the vice-presidential institution; indeed, the form and the substance of the vice presidency today is almost entirely the product of presidential initiative. In total, this study represents an interpretive synthesis of the historical record of the American vice presidency and how that record reflects the development of the institution. In the end, salient institutional markers have led to the development of a modern, utilitarian institution, one that is now fully integrated into the executive government. Of equal import, the standing of the vice presidency today, legitimizes the individual serving in the office, and furthers the influence of the vice president in the executive government. And, in telling the story of the development of the vice presidency, it is readily apparent that a combination of anecdotal and empirical evidence support the thesis of a changed institution, closely integrated with, and dependent upon, the presidency.

This research incorporates a decision-making theory which defines the linkage between the public, the media, the president and the Congress. Specifically, I argue that the public holds widely shared domestic and international goals and responds to a number of external cues provided by the president and the media in its evaluation of presidential policies. Although most studies examine overall presidential popularity, there are important differences in the public's evaluations of the president's handling of foreign and domestic policies. Additionally, I am concerned with how the Congress responds to these specific policy evaluations, the president's public activities, and the electoral policy goals of its members when determining whether or not to support the president. Finally, I link together the theoretical assumptions, to examine the influence of varying levels of support among the Congress and the public, and the president's own personal power goals on the type, quantity, and the quality of activities the president will choose. Ultimately, the primary focus of this dissertation is on the sources and consequences of presidential support and the influence of such support on presidential decision-making.