sign in sign up
<<
Home , Andrew Coyne, John Ibbitson, Justin Trudeau, Just watch me, Wilfrid Laurier

Canadian Political Science Review Vol. 12, No.1, 2018 1-23

Prime Ministerial Leadership in Political Time: Stephen Skowronek’s Framework in Canadian Context1

Jörg Broschek Department of Political Science, University – [email protected]

Abstract: This paper uses Stephen Skowronek’s framework for the study of presidential politics to detect recurrent leadership patterns in . While institutional differences, most notably variation concerning the incumbent’s time in office as well as the less fragmented institutional architecture of Canada’s Westminster democracy, require some modifications, the paper demonstrates that prime ministers and presidents, in principle, face a similar leadership problem. Depending on the condition of the political regime (vulnerable or resilient) and the respective incumbent’s political identity (opposed or affiliated), Canadian prime ministers – just as presidents in United States – tend to engage different leadership patterns. These insights, the paper concludes, open up interesting opportunities to put the American presidency into a comparative perspective.

Keywords: political leadership, American Political Development, prime ministers, Canadian political history, elections

Résumé: Cet article utilise le cadre de Stephen Skowronek pour l'étude de la politique présidentielle afin de détecter les modèles de leadership récurrents au Canada. Bien que les différences institutionnelles, notamment la variation concernant la durée du mandat des et l'architecture institutionnelle moins fragmentée de la démocratie canadienne de Westminster, exigent certaines modifications, le document démontre que les premiers ministres et les présidents sont en principe confrontés à un problème de leadership similaire. Selon la condition du régime politique (vulnérable ou résilient) et l'identité politique de l'intéressé (opposé ou affilié), les premiers ministres canadiens - tout comme les présidents aux États-Unis - ont tendance à adopter différents modèles de leadership. Ces conclusions ouvrent des perspectives intéressantes pour placer la présidence américaine dans une perspective comparative.

Mots-clés: leadership politique, Développement politique américain, premiers ministers, histoire politique canadienne, élections

1

Introduction brought these efforts to a halt, initiating the second transition within the last Canadian politics has undergone decade. This transition followed an two remarkable transitions during the abrupt pattern. After a campaign that last decade, each following a very began with what looked like a three-way different pattern. The first transition race between the incumbent unfolded rather incrementally. After the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP successful merger of the Canadian many observers were hit by surprise Alliance and the Progressive when the election results came in over Conservatives in December 2003, the new the course of the evening, indicating a “Harper Conservatives” set out to Liberal majority government. This second “transform the default thinking of the transition does not only differ in terms of country” (Dornan, 2016: 8) through a how swiftly the Liberals got back to sequence of four elections. Step-by-step, power from third-party status, but also the Harper Conservatives rose to power, how determined they are in changing from official opposition status in 2004 to again the practice of politics in Canada in a solid majority in 2011. The 2011 terms of both, style and substance, aiming election was believed to indicate a more to revert the Conservative legacy. As robust and enduring Conservative era in Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Canadian politics than previous Martin (2015) has put it less than two interludes: It revealed a “big shift”, a months after the October 2015 election: seismic change in Canadian politics “Some elections bring in governments (Bricker and Ibbitson, 2013) or, in the with a major change of philosophy, some words of (2011): with a major change of style. But when have we ever seen both – at such a “This is not like the sudden sweeps of and Mulroney, dizzying pace?” born of the collapse of previous Most accounts of political Liberal governments, only to leadership and electoral politics in collapse of their own internal Canada analyze such dynamic patterns contradictions. This is one that has through a lens Stephen Skowronek (1997; been built slowly, election after 2008) has coined a secular time election, through defeat and perspective. A secular time perspective victory.” confines itself to a chronological In a similar incremental way, reconstruction of sequential periodization through an ambitious effort of social schemes. Changing political leadership engineering, the Harper Conservatives styles are understood as evolving from attempted to expand and more firmly one period to the next, and change in one entrench their new conservative coalition period is measured against change in the and to dismantle public institutions, previous period. Accordingly, the current which they perceived as being infiltrated discussion (both in academic circles and through decade-long Liberal rule (Jeffrey, the broader public) has revolved around 2015). The Canadian federal election of the question of whether or not the rise of October 19, 2015, however, suddenly the Harper Conservatives represents a 2

major departure from the previous rise of new institutionalism has (L)liberal era in Canadian politics. The encouraged scholars to pay closer sweeping victory of the Liberals on attention to the question of how the October 19 2015, then, is assumed to be broader cultural, economic and either an accident (Bricker and Ibbitson, institutional environment shapes the 2015) or to be indicative of the leadership patterns executive actors restoration of the status quo ante (Cohen, adopt. As a consequence, political 2015). leadership is assumed to display certain regular and, to some extent, predictable In his landmark study on US patterns rather than being merely an presidential history, Skowronek shows idiosyncratic product of individual that the secular time perspective fails to leadership skills of a person in power. capture a deeper dynamic rhythm Within this context, Skowronek’s work, inherent to political leadership. acknowledged by one of the leading Skowronek identifies recurrent – or contemporary scholars of comparative cyclical – patterns that persist within and political leadership as a “rare masterpiece across different historical episodes. Such that seeks to systematically contextualize recurrent patterns only become visible presidential leadership” (Helms, 2012: 8), through a political time perspective. By stands out. On the one hand, Skowronek political time Skowronek means the is a founder of the American Political interaction of structure and agency Development (APD) approach, a subfield through two factors which, depending on within American political science their distinct combination, generate dedicated to theory-guided historical different types of leadership styles: The analysis of American politics (Orren and political “regime” of an era (i.e. the Skowronek, 2004). Accordingly, he does dominant, paradigmatic ideological not aspire to make a comparative orientations or “orthodoxies”) and the contribution. On the other hand, APD political identity of the president (i.e. clearly is a subgenre of historical whether the president is affiliated with or institutionalism. As such, conceptual and opposed to the regime). Depending on theoretical tools deployed in APD how the incumbent situates himself research have the potential to be applied (agency) within the political regime of the in other contextual settings (Broschek, day (structure), Skowronek expects the 2012; Lucas and Vipond, 2017). emergence of one out of four possible leadership patterns. This paper suggests that the theoretical premise underlying The purpose of this paper is to Skowronek’s work is not limited to the probe the comparative potential of United States. While contextual Skowronek’s approach by applying it to differences warrant certain modifications, the Canadian case. The study of political it argues that presidents and prime leadership has become an important ministers encounter the leadership subfield within comparative politics (de problem in similar ways. A cursory Clercy and Ferguson, 2016; Dion, 1968; analysis of the Canadian case allows to Elgie, 2016; Helms, 2012; Masciulli, 2009; identify recurring leadership patterns Rhodes and ‘t Hart, 2014). Especially the that bear resemblance to those revealed 3

in Skowronek’s work. These insights open his argument lies the assumption that all up interesting avenues for comparative presidents, regardless of the specific research on the patterns of executive historical context within which they politics in presidential and parliamentary operate, face a similar challenge – a systems. challenge that is deeply rooted in the institutional logic of the presidency. Presidential leadership is about resolving a legitimation problem. While political Comparative Political Leadership: circumstances change as they emerge in Situating Skowronek’s Approach secular time, the general imperative of presidential leadership remains the same: Stephen Skowronek’s approach to It represents “an effort to resolve the the study of presidential politics is disruptive consequences of executive straightforward and fascinating: To action in the reproduction of legitimate uncover the recurrent, yet largely hidden political order […] Somehow the order- patterns of leadership style across shattering implications of the exercise of different historical periods. As Skowronek power have to be reconciled with the contends, research on presidential order affirming expectations of its use.” leadership in the United States has paid (Skowronek, 1997: 20). Presidents, insufficient attention to these dynamics. however, encounter this problem in With its primary focus set on the different ways. Depending on the changing nature of the presidency from historically contingent circumstances at the pre-modern to the modern era, as hand, presidents will variously balance represented in the path-breaking work of contradictory imperatives inherent in the Richard Neustadt (1960) and Arthur office. The political time framework seeks Schlesinger (2004 [1973]), mainstream to detect how presidents are located at scholarship has remained biased towards parallel moments in different historical change that emerges in a linear mode or, periods as they encounter similar types of in Skowronek’s terminology, in secular leadership challenges (Skowronek, 2008: time. Presidential behavior is, 20). This allows identifying the accordingly, grouped into two main contingent political conditions that categories: The pre- and post-Roosevelt prompt recurrent patterns of leadership periods. The paradigmatic assumptions styles. underlying the secular time framework, Skowronek’s starting point is however, come at a price: Differences therefore similar to most approaches to between presidents in the same time period are underestimated while the study of political leadership. He similarities between presidents in conceptualizes political leadership as a reciprocal, interactive process between different periods are obscured political leaders and followers. (Skowronek, 1997: 7). Accordingly, mobilizing power resources To that end, Skowronek suggests from followers requires that political to analytically blend the secular time leaders are able to define and interpret perspective with what he calls the problems and to offer viable solutions by political time perspective. At the heart of prescribing ends and means (Masciulli, 4

2009: 7). The emergent leadership While the evolution of secular time pattern, however, is not primarily a is linear, political time reveals cyclical function of the personal attributes and patterns, expressed in reoccurring skill of the political leader. Similar to leadership styles within and across other approaches inspired by new different historical periods. Different institutionalism, Skowronek’s framework leadership styles are prompted by two seeks to identify the structural conditions conditions, one structural and one that limit and interact with agency. agency-related. First, regardless of their Rather than simply conceptualizing these individual leadership skills and personal constraints as the formal and informal attributes, presidents are situated within rules of the game, however, Skowronek a historically constructed political regime, puts emphasis on their inherent temporal which establishes the paradigmatic dimension. Presidents are situated within assumptions of a given era. The age and the two co-evolving yet interacting condition of the political regime, however, temporal dimensions of secular and can vary: It can be vulnerable and in political time. Secular time captures the crisis, or resilient, imposing different emergence of five “regimes” in American degrees of constraints on the incumbent. political history. Each historical regime Second, the role of agency is demarcates a period that is relatively acknowledged by what Skowronek calls coherent in terms of how policy the political identity of the incumbent. He problems, goals and solutions are broadly suggests that whether or not the perceived over an extended period of incumbent is affiliated with the principles time. The secular evolution of policy of the regime is a second factor that regimes resembles Thomas Kuhn’s shapes the emerging political leadership (1962) pattern of scientific revolutions style. and its political science adaptions (Hall, 1993). As new problems arise, traditional Building on this theoretical solutions turn out to be increasingly premise, Skowronek constructs a ineffective, prompting “anomalies” and relatively parsimonious, but analytically thus generating crises of political powerful classification of recurrent legitimacy. Presidents are key actors in leadership politics. Those presidents who resolving such crises by introducing a became pivotal in establishing a new new paradigmatic approach that regime usually enter into office when an establishes another emerging and established regime has already become relatively durable order. For the case of vulnerable. As entrepreneurial political the United States, Skowronek actors, they are opposed to this historical distinguishes five periods (or “regimes”), legacy and exhibit reconstructive each punctuated by brief transformative leadership politics, like Ronald Reagan or interludes: the Jeffersonian era (1800- Franklin D. Roosevelt. In contrast, 1828), the Jacksonian era (1828-1860), presidents who are elected at a time the Republican era (1860-1932), the New when the established regime is already in Deal era (1932-1980), and the crisis, but who are affiliated with its conservative era (since 1980). ideological commitments, are likely to attempt to breathe new life into an old order through the politics of disjunction. 5

Jimmy Carter is the most recent example rare: I found only two noteworthy articles representing this type of presidential that apply the political time thesis outside leadership. If the political regime is the United States, with profoundly resilient, and the president’s political diverging conclusions. While Matthew identity affiliated with its philosophy, Laing and Bredan McCaffrie (2013) find “orthodox innovators” are likely to extend evidence for similar leadership dynamics and further elaborate the inherited legacy in Australia, Stephen Azzi (2017) is rather through the politics of articulation. skeptical about the applicability of Skowronek identifies Lyndon B. Johnson Skowronek’s framework to the Canadian and George W. Bush as prominent case. Although Azzi does not outright examples. Finally, a resilient political deny the usefulness of the concept of regime with a president who is opposed political time, he suggests that to its underlying principles will Skowronek’s framework does not encourage the politics of pre-emption. adequately capture the leadership styles Under these regime conditions, outright of Canadian prime ministers. In opposition is not an option. Therefore, the particular, he casts doubt on the existence president will attempt to adjust and of political regimes in Canada similar to redefine the programmatic alternative those identified by Skowronek. As a within the established regime structure consequence, it is difficult to identify by making it more compatible with the prime ministers who were either opposed “new political standards” (Skowronek, or affiliated with those paradigmatic 2008: 105). Bill Clinton’s ideas that underpin a regime. politics represent an example of this type of presidential leadership. While it is true that certain key terms of Skowronek’s approach are not The Politics Presidents Make found readily accessible or even opaque, as Azzi widespread acclaim within the United points out, the comparative potential of States, not only among scholars of the framework for the comparative study American Political Development but also of political leadership should not be the larger public. Indeed, Skowronek’s dismissed too easily. The notion of a framework has been frequently quoted in political regime, for example, may be major outlets such as the Washington misleading. Such “reigning orthodoxies” Post, The Huffington Post or The Nation, composed of certain hegemonic ideas and since the election of more interests, however, do not capture an than ever before.2 The question at stake, American idiosyncrasy, but present however, is whether the four leadership themselves in contextual variations. patterns are idiosyncrasies of the Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, presidential system of the United States, Helmut Kohl or can all be or if the mechanisms identified in considered as potential reconstructive Skowronek’s study can travel and operate leaders as they rejected core principles in other institutional contexts like underlying the established order and Canada’s Westminster democracy. successfully asked for a mandate to entrench a new regime during the late Efforts to test the comparative 1970s and early 1980s. Although these potential of Skowronek’s approach are newly elected governments implemented 6

their agenda differently, being more the presidential system of the United radical in rhetoric and outcomes in the States and Canada’s Westminster-style United Kingdom and the United States democracy, however, may limit the than in Germany and Canada, it is hardly transferability of Skowronek’s framework contested that they reset the basic to Canada, or require some modifications. parameters of politics in all four The first limitation results from countries. significant variation concerning the respective incumbents’ time in office. Moreover, although presidential With the notable exception of Franklin and parliamentary systems differ in Delano Roosevelt, no president has important ways, one should expect that served for more than eight years. There is prime ministers, in principle, face a no temporal limit, however, to the length similar leadership problem like the of Canadian prime ministers’ term. presidents in the United States. The Accordingly, the time span Canadian Canadian constitution itself does not prime ministers have served in office entail much explicit detail about the role ranges from 68 days (Sir ) of the executive, but the prime minister to more than 21 years (William Lyon turned out to become a cornerstone of the Mackenzie King). Especially those prime Canadian political system early on. Over ministers who served for more than a the course of the twentieth century, prime decade might change their leadership ministers were able to further consolidate pattern as a response to changing regime their central position. The creation of the conditions. Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) in the late 1960s, for example, solidified the Second, the Canadian political transition from cabinet to prime system is certainly not without ministerial government and the ongoing institutional constraints for prime concentration of power at the “centre” ministerial leadership. (Savoie, 1999). Given the prominence of frequently felt the authority of the the prime minister within Canadian Supreme Court as an important politics, incumbents are confronted with counterweight to federal power, similar expectations as presidents in the especially after the 2011 federal election, United States. More than any other just as will experience institution within the polity, prime enormous difficulties in implementing ministers need to attempt to resolve the promised changes given provincial authority-legitimation nexus on an ascendancy in crucial policy areas. If ongoing basis. Just as presidents, compared to the fragmented nature of the Canadian prime ministers have to deploy United States’ system of checks and their power resources to find a right balances, however, Canada’s Westminster balance of order-disruptive, order- democracy features a comparatively low affirming and order-creating actions so as degree of institutional rigidity. Unlike the to address and control the political president, who has to mobilize support expectations inherently tied to the office. against potential opposition from the states, the Supreme Court and, most Two important differences importantly, Congress, Canadian prime pertaining to the authority structures in ministers are vested with considerable 7

power resources to bypass institutional history into two different eras. They barriers to reform. These institutional suggest that after a time span covering differences might affect how they more than a century during which the elaborate each leadership pattern in “big red machine” (Clarkson, 2005) was practice. able to dominate Canadian politics, we are now witnessing the emergence of a new period of Conservative rule. Secular and Political Time in Canada Other authors situate prime ministerial politics and leaderships styles Secular time is the predominant within the evolving structure of Canada’s lens for analyzing electoral and party party systems. This approach seeks to politics in Canada. A recent example is identify sequences of functionally distinct Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson’s “Big party systems, separated from one Shift” (2013). According to this another by punctuated transition periods. interpretation, a big “seismic” shift has David E. Smith (1985), for example, traces taken place in Canada (Bricker and the changing nature of prime ministers’ Ibbitson, 2013). These tectonic changes approaches to national integration. He became discernible in the electoral suggests that changes in leadership style outcome of 2011, which reflected a have affected the structure of the party deeper, structural transformation in the system, which is divided into three geo-political centre of gravity from the periods. The first party system reflects old “Laurentian region” to the West. A the nation-building approach of John A. combination of long term factors, most Macdonald and Wilfrid Laurier (1867- notably the economic rise of the West and 1914), the second party system the the decline of manufacturing in central accommodative approach of Mackenzie Canada, the demographic composition of King and Louis St. Laurent (1914-1957) the provinces (young versus old) and a and the third party system the pan- re-alignment of the immigrant vote in the Canadian approach of prime ministers suburban ridings of the Greater such as John Diefenbaker, Lester B. Area, are said to indicate a new Pearson and Pierre E. Trudeau (1957- Conservative era in Canadian politics. 1984). Looking at cleavage structures rather than leadership approaches, Several other contributions have Richard Johnston et al. (1992) arrive at a registered the multifaceted aspects of similar periodization scheme. In this Stephen Harper’s attempt to gradually study, transitions from one party system consolidate his power, and to firmly to the next are driven by re-alignments of entrench the Conservatives as the new crucial voter segments. Finally, like Smith “natural governing party” in Canada and Johnston et al., but using yet again a (Behiels, 2010; Jeffrey, 2015; Wells, different set of variables, Kenneth Carty et 2008). These contributions have in al. (2000) consider the election of the common that they zoom in more recent Progressive Conservative Diefenbaker developments, which are then analyzed government (1957-1963) as a turning against the backdrop of Canada’s political point, indicating the transition from the history. In essence, these accounts cut second to the third party system. In 8

addition, Carty et al. suggest the electorate, which has to be renewed from emergence of a fourth, highly regionalized election to election. This recurrent multi-party system in the aftermath of the pattern to “revert to the brokerage landmark 1993 election.3 model” intersects with the secular and sequential evolution of dynasties and While these interpretations adopt interludes over time. a secular time perspective, other studies acknowledge the importance of different, In order to identify recurrent sometimes asynchronous temporal leadership patterns depending on how dynamics. Richard Johnston (2013), for prime ministers are situated in secular example, provides an encompassing time, I use a periodization scheme analysis of voting patterns using introduced by Rainer-Olaf Schultze aggregate data. Johnston identifies (1997). Schultze suggests that the patterns of relative stability over time, evolution of relatively coherent party such as support for the Liberals and the system structures was largely a response NDP, that co-exist with fluctuation, like in to changes in Canada’s policy paradigms. case of voting patterns in the West and He traces the rise and fall of each policy . He offers a systemic perspective paradigm in three dimensions: Political across time and space, revealing the culture (change of intensity and forms of juxtaposition of orderly and disorderly participation, often indicated through components within the Canadian party institutional reforms), actor system on the federal and provincial level. configurations (new political actors The pattern emerging in LeDuc et al. entering the political arena, re-alignment (2016) study of Canada’s electoral history among voters and new voting coalitions) is one in which long periods of stability and substantial changes in the direction are punctuated by short periods of of public policies, which are buttressed disruption. Political leaders such as John through a new basic consensus on the A. Macdonald or role of the state and its place in society. successfully established enduring Schultze’s model draws its inspiration “dynasties”, which are interrupted by so from the literature on Canada’s “national called “interludes”, that means relatively policies”. National policies were short intervals during which governing consciously deployed by successive prime ministers failed to entrench governments regardless of their partisan another dynasty. This secular evolution of composition, to foster a collective identity five political dynasties and six interludes and integration north of the 49th parallel is, however, driven by a non-linear, (Fowke, 1952; Smiley, 1975; Eden and cyclical mechanism. Considering the Molot, 1993). The first , fragmentation and volatility of the introduced by the Macdonald government Canadian electorate, so the argument in 1879 entailed three elements: railway goes, successful dynasties depend on construction, immigration policy and, whether or not party leaders are able to most importantly, the protective tariff. deploy the brokerage party model. Much more encompassing than the first Positioning themselves as credible national policy, the second national brokers allows them to put together a policy’s core feature was a commitment voter collation across the diverse to the creation and expansion of a pan- 9

Canadian welfare state and policy, as in Eden and Molot’s (1993) interventionist Keynesian macro- study, is debatable. It is hardly contested, economic policies. Whether or not the however, that this new paradigm has emergence of a new “neo-conservative”, replaced the basic principles underlying market-driven paradigm in the 1980s the second national policy (Table 1). deserves to be labeled as a “national”

Table 1: Secular Time: Canada’s Political Regimes

First Regime (1867-1921): • (First) National Policy: agrarian expansion, protective tariff • Two-Party System Formation 1867-1878 • “Confederation” Paradigm 1878-1911 • National Policy of 1879 Consolidation Decay and 1911- • Free trade dispute, and crisis Transition 1930/35 • Agrarian protest movements Second Regime (1930/35-1984): • Second National Policy: Social democratic consensus in the welfare state and Keynesian macro-economics • Multi-Party System Formation 1930/35- • Depression, World War II and the formulation of New Deal- 1945 Responses Paradigm 1945-mid • Institutionalization of welfare state Consolidation 1970s Decay and mid- • Experiment of a “Third National Policy” abandoned Transition 1970s- • Macdonald Commission 1988 Third Regime (1988- ) • Dismantling of Keynesian welfare state, the politics of “permanent austerity” (Paul Pierson) • Multi-Party System Formation 1988-1995 • FTA/NAFTA, privatization and modest retrenchment Paradigm 1995- • 1995/96 Federal Budget Consolidation • market-conform policy solutions to address major challenges like social investment and cap-and-trade

Source: Adapted from Schultze 1997: 272-73 This periodization scheme Schultze’s account ranges from the early contrasts with other prominent 1930s to 1984. Similar to LeDuc et al. interpretations of party system change in (2016), Schultze considers the important respects. While all authors Diefenbaker government (1957-1963) as largely agree on the temporal boundaries an interlude rather than a turning point. of the first regime, the second regime in The Mulroney government (1984-1993), 10

which occurs as an interlude in LeDuc et al. (2016) as well, is both part of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau or Stephen transition from the second to the third Harper are often portrayed as prime regime (1984-1988) and indicative of the ministers whose leadership styles, at first formation of the latter (1988-1993). glance, look like a reconstructive pattern. Published 20 years ago, however, Trudeau won the Liberal Party’s Schultze did not further discuss the leadership in the 1968 contest as an nature of this unfolding regime. At the outsider, having joined the Liberal Party time of writing, he assumed the third less than three years earlier. Similarly, if regime still to be in its formative stage. one takes the traditional Progressive From a present day perspective, it can be Conservative Party as the default argued that the third regime became condition for conservative politics in more fully entrenched during the 1990s Canada, Harper needs to be considered as and 2000s. The Canadian case is an outsider who had to forge a new remarkable insofar as the third regime political party to rise to power. Moreover, still seems to be resilient while recent both were leaders with great ambition. developments in the United States and Trudeau’s rhetoric of a “”, and Europe, most notably the increasing his effort to adopt a more functional and polarization and party system rational governance approach, openly fragmentation with a consolidation of reflected a commitment to fundamentally right-wing anti-establishment parties, change traditional patterns in politics Brexit or the election of Donald Trump, (English, 2009). Stephen Harper’s indicate a growing crisis in confidence transformative aspirations were laid out regarding the paradigmatic assumptions somewhat more clandestine, but became established in the late 1970s and 1980s. more discernible over the long term While anomalies are on the rise (Jeffrey, 2015). internationally, in Canada political responses so far have been largely Moreover, both prime ministers consistent with the established undoubtedly left an imprint on the paradigmatic order. In particular, the Canadian political landscape. According to creation of market-conform cap-and trade LeDuc et al., both successfully established models or new spending initiatives political dynasties in Canadian politics, directed towards “social investment” albeit with significant differences in scope policies have further consolidated rather and duration (Leduc, et al., 2016; Leduc, than replaced the existing regime. The 2015). Trudeau and Harper, however, did following section illustrates how not inaugurate a new regime structure. recurrent leadership patterns emerging in Reconstructive leaders, in Skowronek’s secular time can contribute to test the account, historically sit at the interface of accuracy of this periodization scheme. two political regimes, with the old one in decay and the new one on the horizon, and emerge as pivotal actors to entrench the new regime. Provided the Recurrent Leadership Patterns in periodization scheme for Canada’s secular Canadian Political History time sketched in the previous section is The Politics of Reconstruction correct, it should therefore be possible to 11

detect reconstructive leadership patterns plan: between July 1 and September 1876, in the politics of John A. Macdonald the Conservatives held a number of such (1867-73; 1878-1891), Mackenzie King picnics all across Southern which (1921-1930; 1935-1948) and Brian became a “grand circuit of entertainment Mulroney (1984-1993). and a network of musters of the Conservative clans” (Creighton, 1998 Compared to their presidential [1955]: 224). What is more, the National counterparts, reconstructive leaders in Policy represented a major break with the Canada appear less revolutionary and ideological commitments of the past. Not dramatic in impetus and tone (see also only did the more systematic and Azzi 2017). Moreover, Macdonald and deliberate adoption of protectionist King deviate from the patterns identified measures contradict the free trade by Skowronek in several ways – King doctrine that still predominated economic even more so than Macdonald. Both discourses of the time. Moreover, prime ministers did not enter office as advocating and, ultimately, implementing reconstructive leaders. Instead, they a program of this scale and depth adopted this style only after they had presupposed a fundamentally new been defeated and relegated to the approach to and understanding of the role opposition benches for one legislative of the state. As historian and journalist session. Also, unlike most American Richard Gwyn (2012: 285-6) has put it in reconstructive leaders, Macdonald and his biography of Macdonald: King were neither great repudiators, nor great communicators. In both cases, the “Macdonald’s idea for a National main feature of reconstructive leadership Policy was even more ambitious was more constructive rather than than his commitment to a destructive as they orchestrated political transcontinental railway. What this change in a way that emphasized regime- conservative, now in his mid-sixties, building rather than regime-destroying. was proposing to do was something that had never been attempted The National Policy, or First before in Canada – nor would be National Policy as it was labeled again for another half-century […]. retrospectively, became the vehicle for The innovative idea that Macdonald John A. Macdonald’s politics of accepted implicitly with his National reconstruction. To be sure, in various Policy was that government should ways, each of the three main components intervene in times of public need.” of the National Policy – railway And: “Intervention by government construction, immigration policy and the violated the conventional wisdom of protective tariff – had already been the day”. established.4 While being in opposition between 1873 and 1878, however, The reconstructive leadership Macdonald brought these existing traits pattern re-emerged for a second time together programmatically to craft a new under Mackenzie King after he had coherent, paradigmatic future agenda. become re-elected in 1935. While Canada Political picnics were invented as a new was still struggling with the consequences campaigning method to disseminate this of the Great Depression, and facing third 12

parties and movements as a profound pattern as defined by Skowronek quite electoral threat, King adopted – well. Unlike Macdonald and King, reluctantly – a number of measures that Mulroney became elected as a indicated again a significant shift in how reconstructive leader rather than turning the role of the state in society was into one. He entered the political arena perceived. The creation of the Royal asking for a mandate for change that Commission on -Provincial promised to be equally repudiative and Relations in 1937 and the commissioning constructive. Mulroney’s first electoral of the Report on Social Security for victory in 1984 was of historic Canada in 1942 (Marsh Report) were proportions: It was the third earned important steps into this direction. In the majority since 1921 (after 1940 and first Keynesian’ inspired budget of 1938, a 1958) and the largest landslide majority “turning point in fiscal policy in Canada” in Canadian history. This electoral success (Neatby, 1972: 85), or the introduction of was made possible through a historically Unemployment Insurance in 1940, this unprecedented voting coalition including changing ideational stance eventually not only Ontario, but also Quebec and the became manifest. Unlike previous social West. The subsequent reversals of policy reforms enacted on the federal policies representing central planks of the level like the Old Age Pensions Act of Second National Policy indicate the 1927, which remained scattered and repudiative element of Mulroney’s limited in scope, the measures initiated leadership. The termination of the under King during the late 1930s and (NEP), the early 1940s signaled the formation of a replacement of the Foreign Investment “new” or “second” national policy (Fowke, Review Agency (FIRA) with Investment 1952). Whereas King’s electoral campaign Canada, the privatization of high-profile slogan in the 1935 election – “King or Crown Corporations carrying symbolic Chaos” – had put emphasis on continuity value for national unity (e.g. Air Canada, rather than change, ten years later, in his Teleglobe) and, ultimately, the creation of last campaign in 1945, the slogan clearly the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement in reflected this new commitment for 1989 are the most visible examples change: “Vote Liberal and Keep Building a indicating the transformative nature of New Social Order for Canada” (quoted in Mulroney’s incumbency. On the ideational LeDuc, et al., 2016: 143). level, Mulroney invoked neo- conservatism to buttress the rejection of Less fuzzy and more clearly the “old” regime of the Second National discernible than during the Macdonald Policy and the formation and and King incumbencies, the establishment of a new paradigm for reconstructive leadership pattern Canada. Although infused with less surfaced for a third time under Brian ideological commitment than in the Mulroney in 1984. Although most United States and the United Kingdom observers agree that his agenda was more under Reagan and Thatcher, Mulroney’s pragmatist and less ideology-driven than agenda was inspired and driven by the the Reagan Revolution or Thatcher’s same intellectual framework: premiership (Blake, 2007), the Mulroney incumbency fits the reconstructive 13

“Although arguably not as transition from the politics of disjunction ideological in thinking as Thatcher’s to the politics of reconstruction. It was and Reagan’s, Mulroney’s policy not until the late 1930s that he seems to agenda had a striking resemblance have realized the necessity to adopt a to theirs. There is little doubt that more reconstructive leadership style. when Mulroney came to office in Prior to that, King’s approach largely 1984, he looked to these two reflected the logic of disjunctive politics. conservative soul mates for While acknowledging that some form of inspiration. […] Thus Thatcher, government activity was necessary to Reagan and Mulroney held similar deal with the Great Depression, he did not views not only what was wrong believe radical measures would be with government but also on how to warranted. Rather, he considered the make things right.” (Savoie, 1994: crisis as a temporary recession which 10) could best be fixed through the economic system itself, most notably through

lowering the protective tariff. Even after The Politics of Disjunction his re-election in 1935 he initially rejected the far reaching proposals of the National Employment Commission, which If reconstructive leaders are most he himself had appointed immediately effective in addressing the legitimation after taking office. The recommendations problem inherent in the presidency, the included, among other things, a federal opposite holds true for presidents who unemployment scheme and increased are affiliated with the established order, federal expenditures, but King responded but come to power when it is already in to Keynes arrival in Canada with outright decay. Late regime affiliates are extremely hostility (Neatby, 1972: 83-4).5 vulnerable: breathing new life into an old, sometimes even collapsing order While King successfully switched confronts them with an “impossible from a disjunctive to a reconstructive leadership situation” (Skowronek, 2008: leadership pattern, making the seemingly 90). They engage into a politics of impossible possible, Pierre E. Trudeau’s disjunction in order to re-establish efforts to rescue the increasingly crisis- credibility for a regime in crisis, prone regime of the second national attempting to rescue the old order policy failed, paving the way for through an adaptation of instruments. Mulroney’s politics of reconstruction after The growing number of anomalies, 1984. In fact, the measures undertaken by however, has already weakened the Trudeau over the course of the 1970s and paradigmatic assumptions underlying the 1980s almost perfectly match old regime in such a way that they can no Skowronek’s description. Trudeau longer be effectively brushed away. attempted to fix a number of virulent problems, most notably Canada’s weak Again, such patterns can be found economic performance and centrifugal in Canadian political history, albeit with dynamics resulting from a new wave of some modifications. Mackenzie King, for province-building and Quebec’s example, successfully managed the aspirations to become a sovereign state, 14

by developing an ambitious strategy Development Prospects for Canada Donald Smiley (1987) has portrayed as (Macdonald Commission), whose the “Third National Policy”. The purpose recommendations outlined the contours of this strategy was to re-establish of the new long-term, neo-liberal credibility for the principles economic order underlying the new underpinning the old order through a political regime (Inwood 2005). The modernized version of the second consolidation of the old regime eventually national policy, inspired by social- failed, and the Liberals were defeated by democratic ideas and implemented reconstructive leader Brain Mulroney in through a highly visible, interventionist the landmark 1984 election. federal government (Leslie, 1987; Smiley, 1987). This policy shift included, among other things, the aforementioned FIRA in The Politics of Articulation 1973, wage and price controls introduced in 1975, the creation of Petro Canada as a crown corporation in 1975, tax reforms Affiliates who enter office in a fully and the so called Third Option, a new unfolding and maturing political regime diversification strategy. When Trudeau are likely to adopt a leadership style was re-elected in 1980, after the brief Skowronek has defined as the politics of interlude under Progressive Conservative articulation. They are often “orthodox (1979-80), the inadequacy of innovators”, seeking to create a better fit this approach became more visible in between the regime and its underpinning light of enduring weak economic philosophy and to erase existing performance and aggravating inconsistencies. In Canada, prime contestation. As a response, his approach ministers as diverse as Lester B. Pearson, became more contradictory. While the Stephen Harper or the early Pierre federal government increasingly lost Trudeau fall into this category. control over the process of economic The premiership of Pearson and development, Trudeau, on the one hand, his successor Trudeau differed in many stuck to and even radicalized the respects. Pearson represented the “old nationalization of energy policy, and guard” within the Liberal Party’s merged existing programs into the establishment. As the father of modern National Energy Program (NEP), one of peace-keeping and a diplomat par the most ambitious policy projects in excellence, he also adhered to an Canadian history. On the other hand, accommodative approach in domestic reinforced through declining oil prices on politics to cope with Quebec’s demands the world market which torpedoed the and the rise of regionalism more NEP shortly after its introduction, he generally. Trudeau, in contrast, is often abandoned the interventionist approach portrayed as a highly charismatic leader; in a number of crucial areas such as the handing-over of the office to him, and regional industrial policy, and turned to a the subsequent federal election of 1968, policy of fiscal restraint. Perhaps more as heralding the beginning of a new importantly, he created the Royal political era in the country (English, Commission on the Economic Union and 2009). Most importantly, Trudeau’s 15

governing philosophy to encounter the Assistance Plan (Kent, 1988). Trudeau’s challenges stemming from Canada’s landmark reform of Unemployment diversity and growing centrifugal forces Insurance in 1971 and the comprehensive stands in striking contrast to the reform of the Family Allowances Program Pearson’ian diplomacy: in 1974 completed the creation of a grand social security system as outlined in “My political action, or my theory – pioneering studies like the Marsh Report insomuch as I can be said to have in the 1940s (Rice and Prince, 2013). one – can be expressed very simply: create counterweights. As I have According to Skowronek (2008: explained, it was because of the 100), the temporal distance between the federal government’s weakness that reconstructive leader and the orthodox I allowed myself to be catapulted innovator can affect the leadership into it” (Trudeau, 1968: xxiii) problem of the latter. In the United States, temporal distance between both Although their views on presidential types – like in case of Reagan substantial issues like national unity and Bush junior - furnished the latter differed, the early Trudeau resembled with better opportunities to emerge as a Pearson still much more than the late leader in his own right compared to a Trudeau, when his leadership style president who merely turns his turned into the politics of disjunction. For predecessor’s “legacy into a workable example, the Victoria Charter of 1971, a system of government” because he stands proposed constitutional amendment, directly in the shadow of the entailed a revised provision for the reconstructive leader. Likewise, in division of powers which would have Canada, the commitment to fully entrench acknowledged provincial supremacy in the second regime’s principles was much important areas of social policy. Even the more clearly discernible in the politics of Established Programs Financing Act of Pearson and Trudeau compared to 1977, which signaled the decline of the Mackenzie King’s successor Louis St second regime given ’s more Laurent. And the same applies to Stephen limited financial commitment to fund core Harper, who came to power 13 years after welfare state programs, was still Brian Mulroney had successfully managed negotiated in a cooperative spirit. This the transition from the second to the third pattern was in stark contrast to the unilateral imposition of the NEP or the regime. Canada Health Act in the 1980s. What is Perhaps more than any other more, continuity rather than change prime minister, Harper almost perfectly characterizes Pearson’s and Trudeau’s matches Skowronek’s depiction of the efforts to complete the architecture of the orthodox innovator. Not only was his post-war welfare state. During Pearson’s ideological thinking much more steady, five year tenure, one of the most talented consistent and directly inspired by cabinets in Canadian history mastered the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan enactment of core pan-Canadian than Mulroney’s rather pragmatic programs such as the Canada/Quebec approach. Moreover, at the heart of Pension Plan, Medicare and the Canada Harper’s “Canadian Revolution” (Wells, 16

2008) was his determination to make the existing regime. Wilfrid Laurier’s (1896- Conservatives the natural governing 1911) leadership style is somewhat party. And although he demonstrated reminiscent of this pattern. remarkable flexibility and caution in consolidating this strategy, his long-term A central plank of the Liberal’s goal was to complete the paradigmatic programmatic agenda of the day was free turn Mulroney had initiated: Through a trade. Their staunch opposition to the renewed, powerful Conservative Party protective tariff of the National Policy and and, ultimately, with the goal to transform advocacy of a reciprocity treaty with the the ideological makeup of Canadian United States constituted one of the major society (Jeffrey, 2015). “There is a programmatic differences between the constant tension in his politics between a two parties. In light of the National short-term impulse to hug the centre and Policy’s resilience, however, the Liberals a long-term determination to move it - to under Laurier began to water down their transform Canadian society”, writes Paul proposals, without entirely jettisoning Wells in a 2008 portrait of Stephen their position on trade policy. The politics Harper. This required, according to of pre-emption became manifest through Harper, two things: a rhetorical redesignation of the tariff’s policy goal: The Liberals simply framed “One thing you do is you have to pull and justified the continuation of the tariff conservatives, to pull the party, to as a necessary revenue measure rather the centre of the political spectrum. than a protective economic tool, which But what you also have to do, if would be maintained as long as it is you’re really serious about making “necessary to carry on the business of the transformation, is you have to pull Government” (quoted in LeDuc, et al., the centre of the political spectrum 2016: 74). toward conservatism…We’re […] building the country towards a The Liberal government under definition of itself that is more in Jean Chrétien (1993-2003) provides line with conservatism.” (Harper, another, even better, example for the quoted in Wells, 2008). politics of pre-emption in Canadian politics. The Liberals entered the 1993 election campaign with a historically The Politics of Pre-emption unpreceded comprehensive platform, the so called Red Book. Under the headline “Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan Political leaders who are not for Canada”, they outlined a detailed affiliated with a resilient regime structure “third way” agenda. At first glance, the may entertain the politics of pre-emption deep budget cuts of 1995-96, along with as a way out to encounter the dilemma the 1996 reform of Unemployment this configuration imposes on them. As Insurance, which were far more outright rejection of the political legacy is draconian than any policy reform not a viable option, the challenge is to introduced by Mulroney during the adjust the own programmatic agenda in a 1980s, do not seem to be entirely way that makes it somehow compatible consistent with, or even contradict, the with the premises underpinning the 17

muddling through, “third way” logic of modifications, prime ministers, in this leadership pattern. In fact, however, essence, need to resolve the problem of this unexpected move was an almost balancing contradictory implications of inevitable response to Canada’s political authority in a similar way as worsening economic and fiscal situation presidents. Depending on their political rather than an ideologically motivated affiliation and how they are situated effort to more firmly entrench a more historically at the intersection of secular market-oriented regime (Jeffrey, 2010). and political time, prime ministers, just as Entering the post-deficit era less than their American counterparts, tend to three years after the landmark budget engage in distinct, recurring leadership furnished the Chrétien government with styles. resources to slowly relaunch spending initiatives, and to deliver on at least some Differences between both systems of the promises made in the Red Book. matter, and reveal certain limitations. It is The purpose was not only to restore the difficult, for example, to attribute fiscal foundations of programs of highly Mackenzie King or Pierre Elliott Trudeau, symbolic value and middle class appeal, who have occupied the office of the prime most notably health care, but also to align ministers for an extended period, one the welfare state with the new regime by clear-cut leadership pattern. Rather, in prioritizing programs consistent with the both cases the leadership pattern seems “social investment” paradigm (Jenson, to have changed as a response to shifting 2013). contextual conditions. In addition, Canadian prime ministers do not have to mobilize, in a similar way, broad public support as mandate for change against Conclusion: The Comparative Potential retarding forces in the powerful Congress. of the “The Politics Presidents Make” This puts less pressure on reconstructive leaders to perform publicly as “great communicators”. The “The Politics Presidents Make” These limitations, however, to not has not revealed idiosyncrasies of the American presidency. Skowronek’s diminish the comparative potential of theoretical argument is quite robust, Skowronek’s approach. A cursory bearing considerable potential for comparative summary between presidents and prime ministers points to comparative analysis. The leadership interesting similarities (Table 2). As the problem is not a peculiarity of the presidential system in the United States. secular evolution of regimes in both While institutional differences between countries has elapsed almost simultaneously since the 1930s, as a fairly the fragmented nature of the presidential parallel process, several leaders have system on the one, the power- concentrating architecture of Canada’s found themselves coping with similar Westminster democracy warrant certain leadership problems.

18

Table 2: Presidents, Prime Ministers and Leadership Patterns Compared: Examples

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-45: Politics of Mackenzie King 1935-49 (Term: IV, V, VI): Reconstruction Politics of Reconstruction

Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-69: Politics of Lester B. Pearson 1963-68: Politics of Articulation Articulation

Jimmy Carter 1977-81: Politics of Disjunction Pierre Elliott Trudeau 1980-84(Term: IV): Politics of Disjunction

Ronald Reagan 1981-89: Politics of Brian Mulroney 1984-1993: Politics of Reconstruction Reconstruction

Bill Clinton 1993-2001: Politics of Pre-emption Jean Chretien: 1993-2003: Politics of Pre- emption

George W. Bush 2001-2009: Politics of Stephen Harper: 2006-2015: Politics of Articulation Articulation

Barack Obama (2009-2017): Politics of Pre- Justin Trudeau (2015 -): Politics of Pre- emption emption

While Skowronek’s approach Justin Trudeau, at first glance, seems to should not be understood point towards new reconstructive deterministically, it offers interesting leaders. Obama’s 2008 platform promised insight into mechanisms working at a to renew America’s promise, announcing deeper level of the polity, which are that “we are at the crossroads. As we responsible for prompting recurrent meet, we are in the sixth year of a two- leadership patterns. This opens up a front war. Our economy is struggling. Our fascinating research agenda at the planet is in peril.... It is time for a change. intersection between history and political We can do better” (Democratic National science. In particular, case studies on the Committee 2008: 5). Likewise, the Liberal remarkable coincidence of similar 2015 platform’s slogan “Real Change” was patterns since the late 1970s, or the turned into “Making Real Change Happen” politics of articulation of Johnson and in the Speech from the Throne in Pearson during the 1960s, promise December 2015. Behind this rhetoric of interesting insights. Moreover, the change in both cases, however, has political time framework offers a emerged a pre-emptive leadership style. powerful analytical lens to compare and Without understating the major situate historically the rhetoric and achievement of implementing Obamacare, politics of change utilized by different Obama clearly worked within the political leaders. For example, the confines of the existing political regime. rhetoric deployed by Barak Obama and He never effectively challenged its

19

foundational pillars, not even when the Blake, Raymond. 2007. “Introduction.” In 2008 financial crisis opened up a critical Transforming the Nation: Canada and juncture. As for Trudeau, if Skowronek’s Brian Mulroney, ed. Raymond Blake. framework has any predictive power in & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Canada, and provided the periodization University Press, 3-15. scheme capturing the secular time dimension is accurate, the most likely Bricker, Darrell and John Ibbitson. 2013. The scenario to expect is a preemptive pattern Big Shift: The Seismic Change in Canadian as well. Most importantly, and unlike in Politics, Business and Culture and What It Means for our Future. Toronto: the United States and many European HarperCollins. countries, the conditions for regime change are barely existent in Canada. Bricker, Darrell and John Ibbitson. 2015. With the Third Regime still being “Why Canada’s Shift to Conservatism isn’t remarkably resilient, Canadian politics Dead.” , October 28. lack the contextual conditions that prompt the emergence of reconstructive Broschek, Jörg. 2012. “Historical leaders, at least for the time being. Institutionalism and the Study of Despite his credible commitment to Canadian Politics” In Politik in “Make Real Change Happen”, we should Nordamerika und Europa: Analysen, expect that Justin Trudeau won’t attempt Theorien, und literatische Rezeption, ed. to challenge the predominant order, and, Jan Grasnick and Katja Walter. ultimately, resume the preemptive Wiesbaden: V.S. Springer, 40-62. politics of Jean Chrétien. Carty, Kenneth, William Cross and Lisa Young. ______2000. Rebuilding Canadian Party Politics. : UBC Press. Works Cited Clarkson, Stephen. 2005. The Big Red Machine. How the Liberal Party Dominates Canadian Politics. Vancouver: UBC Press. Azzi, Stephen. 2017. “Political Time in a Westminster Democracy: The Canadian Cohen, Andrew. 2015. “Canada’s Return to Case” American Review of Canadian the Politics of the Past.” , Studies 47 (1): 19-34. December 20.

Behiels, Michael. 2010. “Stephen Harper’s Coyne, Andrew. 2011. “The West is in and Rise to Power: Will His ‘New’ Ontario has Joined it.” Maclean’s, May 6. Conservative Party become Canada’s Natural Governing Party of the Twenty- Creighton, Donald. 1998. John A. Macdonald: First Century?” American Review of The Young Politician, the Old Chieftain. Canadian Studies 40(1): 118-145. Toronto: Press.

20

de Clercy, Cristine and Peter A. Ferguson. Helms, Ludger. 2012. “Introduction: The 2016. “Leadership in Precarious Contexts: Importance of Studying Political Studying Political Leaders after the Global Leadership Comparatively”. In Financial Crisis”. Politics and Governance Comparative Political Leadership ed. 4 (2): 104-114. Ludger Helms. Houndmills: Palgrave, 1- 24. Democratic National Committee. 2008. Renewing America’s Promise. Report of the Inwood, Gregory. 2005. Continentalizing Platform Committee. Washington D.C. Canada: The Politics and Legacy of the Macdonald Royal Commission. Toronto: Dion, Léon. 1968. “The Concept of Political University of Toronto Press. Leadership: An Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 1 (1): 2-17. Jeffrey, Brooke. 2010. Divided Loyalties: The , 1984-2008. Dornan, Christopher. 2016. “The Long Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Goodbye: The Contours of the Election” In The Canadian federal Election of 2015 ed. Jeffrey, Brooke. 2015. Dismantling Canada: Jon Pammett and Christopher Dornan. Stephen Harper’s New Conservative Toronto: Dundurn, 7-21. Agenda. Montreal & Kingston: McGill- Queen’s University Press. Eden, Lorraine and Maureen Appel Molot. 1993. “Canada’s National Policies: Jenson, Jane. 2013. “Historical Reflections on 125 Years.” Canadian Transformations of Canada’s Social Public Policy 19(3): 232-251. Architecture: Institutions, Instruments, and Ideas.” In Inequality and the Fading of Elgie, Robert. 2015. Studying Political Redistributive Politics, ed. Keith Banting Leadership. Foundations and Contending and John Myles. Vancouver: UBC Press, Accounts. Houndmills: Palgrave. 43-64.

English, John. 2009. . The Life of Johnston, Richard. 2013. “Alignment, Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1968-2000. Realignment and Dealignment in Canada: Toronto: Knopf. The View from Above.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46(2): 245-271. Fowke, Vernon. 1952. “The National Policy: Old and New.” Canadian Journal of Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, Henry Brady Economics and Political Science 18(3): and Jean Crete. 1992. Letting the People 271-286. Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Gwyn, Richard. 2012. Nation Maker. Sir John University Press. A. Macdonald: His Life, Our Times. Volume Two: 1867-1891. Toronto: Vintage Kent, Tom. 1988. A Public Purpose: An Canada. Experience of Liberal Opposition and Canadian Government. Montreal & Hall, Peter. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Learning, and the State: The Case of Press. Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275-296.

21

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Masciulli, Joseph, Mikhail Molchanov and W. Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University Andy Knight. 2009. “Political Leadership of Chicago Press. in Context” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership, ed. Laing, Matthew and Bredan McCaffrie. 2013. Masciulli, Joseph, Mikhail Molchanov and “The Politics Prime Ministers Make: W. Andy Knight. Farnham/Burlington: Political Time and Executive Leadership Ashgate, 9-27. in Westminster Systems.” In Understanding Prime-Ministerial Neatby, Blair. 1972. The Politics of Chaos: Performance: Comparative Perspectives, Canada in the Thirties. Toronto: ed. Paul Strangio, Paul ‘T Hart, and James Macmillan. Walter Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79-101 Neustadt, Richard. 1960. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York: LeDuc, Lawrence. 2015. “The End of the Wiley. Harper Dynasty.” In Canadian Election Analysis: Communication, Strategy, and Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. 1994. Democracy, ed. Alex Marland and Thierry “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes Giasson Vancouver: UBC Press, 8-9. for a ‘New Institutionalism.’” In The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches LeDuc, Lawrence, John Pammett, Judith and Interpretations, ed. Lawrence C. Dodd McKenzie and Andre Turcotte. 2016. and Calvin Jillson. Boulder: Westview Dynasties and Interludes: Past and Present Press: 311-330. in Canadian Politics. 2nd edition. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. 2004. The Search for American Political Leslie, Peter. 1987. Federal State, National Development. Cambridge: Cambridge Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto University Press. Press. Pammett, Jon and Christopher Dornan (eds). Lucas, Jack and Robert Vipond. 2017. “Back to 2016. The Canadian Federal Election of the Future: Historical Political Science 2015. Toronto: Dundurn Press. and the Promise of Canadian Political Development” Canadian Journal of Rhodes, R. A. W. and Paul ‘T Hart (eds.). 2014. Political Science 50 (1): 219-241. The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Martin, Lawrence. 2015. “Has the Tenor of Press. Canada Ever Turned this Quickly?” The Globe and Mail, December 15. Rice, James and Michael Prince. 2013. The Changing Politics of Canadian Social Masciulli, Joseph, Mikhail Molchanov and W. Policy, 2nd Edition. Toronto: University of Andy Knight (eds.). 2009. The Ashgate Toronto Press. Research Companion to Political Leadership. Farnham/Burlington: Savoie, Donald. 1994. Thatcher, Reagan and Ashgate. Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press. 22

Savoie, Donald.1999. Governing from the Reappraisal. Lawrence: University of Centre: The Concentration of Power in Kansas Press. Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smiley, Donald. 1975. “Canada and the Quest for a National Policy.” Canadian Journal of Schlesinger, Arthur. 2004. The Imperial Political Science 8(1): 40-62. Presidency. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Smiley, Donald. 1987. The Federal Condition Schultze, Rainer-Olaf. 1997. in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. “Repräsentationskrise, Parteiensystem- und Politikwandel in Kanada seit den Smith, David E. 1985. “Party Government, 80er Jahren.” In Kanada in der Krise. Representation and National Integration Analysen zum Verfassungs-, Wirtschafts- in Canada.” In Party Government and und Parteiensystemwandel seit den 80er Regional Representation in Canada, ed. Jahren, ed. Rainer-Olaf Schultze und Peter Aucoin. Toronto: University of Steffen Schneider. Bochum: Brockmeyer, Toronto Press, 1-68. 269-313. Trudeau, Pierre E. 1968. Federalism and the Skowronek, Stephen. 1997. The Politics . Toronto: Macmillan Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge: Harvard Wells, Paul. 2008. “Harper’s Canadian University Press. Revolution.” Maclean’s, September 17.

Skowronek, Stephen. 2008. Presidential Leadership in Political Time: Reprise and

Endnotes April 24, 2017; Lemieux, Scott: “Is Donald Trump the next Jimmy Carter?” In: New Republic January 1 An earlier version of this article was presented at 23, 2017. the American, British, and Canadian Political Development Workshop “Democratization and 3 For a pointed critique see Clarkson (2005: Citizenship”, University of Oxford, Nuffield 206ff.). College, May 5-7, 2016. I would like to thank the participants, in particular my discussant Daniel 4 Authors like Vernon Fowke (1952), for example, Tichenor, and the two anonymous reviewers for argue that national policy has evolved in an excellent comments. The usual disclaimer applies. incremental process reaching back to 1825.

2 See for example: Kreitner, Richard: “What Time 5 In a similar way, but within the much shorter is it? Here’s What the 2016 Election tells us about time span of less than five years, R.B. Bennett’s Obama, Trump, and what comes Next” In: The (1930-35) response to the crisis shifted, all of a Nation November 22, 2016; Franklin, Daniel P: sudden and unexpectedly at the end of his term, “Trump could be a ‘Reconstructive President’, from a disjunctive (e.g. increasing the tariff) to a completely transforming the U.S. for 40 Years” In: reconstructive pattern (the so called Bennett The Huffington Post February 10, 2017; “New Deal”: the Employment and Social Insurance Skowronek, Stephen: “Is Trump the Great Act of 1935). Disruptor? Probably not” In:

23