BackStory

The More Things Change: The History of Presidential Transitions

What Barack Obama accomplishes in his first hundred days remains to be seen, and yet pundits are already talking about him in the same breath as Lincoln and FDR. In this hour of BackStory, the History Guys look at presidential transitions, and ask whether they deserve all the attention they tend to get. First, historian Michael Holt discusses James Polk and other lesser-known presidents whose accomplishments outshine their reputations. Then, producer Catherine Moore recounts the story of America’s first inaugural parade. Last, Henry Haller, White House chef through five presidencies, talks about the differences between cooking for Democrats and Republicans.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Guests Include:

Show Highlights

Further Reading

Want to dig deeper into the history of Presidential transitions? Check out this list of resources compiled by the History Guys to learn more.

14 Responses

  • Could some part of the show discuss the transfer of *information* (physical, virtual) between different administrations, and what happens to the records of a particular administration once a new administration comes in?

    Quote
    Tamar
    12/5/2008 at 2:11 pm

  • Hi BackStory! One of the most interesting aspects of this particular transition is the impact it will have on the Justice Department. As has been reported ad nausem, Eric Holder faces a tall order as the new Attorney General in restoring faith in the separation of politics from hiring of staff attorneys. Could part of the show discuss how presidential transitions have affected hiring practices in new administrations? Andrew Jackson began the spoils system in the 19th century, but to what extent have new presidential administrations attempted to reconfigure the civil service and career bureaucrats by replacing them with political supporters?

    Thanks!
    Rohan

    Quote
    Rohan Pai
    12/18/2008 at 10:39 am

  • Hi BackStory! I think the reason our country is so fascinated with presidential transitions relative to changes in Congress or in the Supreme Court is because of our fascination with matters of war and diplomacy. In this election year, there is a hope by many antiwar liberals that Obama will break dramatically from the Bush foreign policy in Iraq. I would love to hear your panel’s thoughts on transitions during an ongoing war or conflict. How much control does a President and his cabinet actually have or are decisions ultimately based on the facts on the ground?

    Quote
    Kadeem Cooper
    12/18/2008 at 12:21 pm

  • I thought your comments on presidents campaigning on the plank of staying out of war and choosing war once in office was right on. Two other examples came to mind that weren’t mentioned: LBJ in 1964 (painted Goldwater as the hawk on Viietnam (not hard to do) and pledged he wouldn’t send American boys to fight in a foreign jungle and Bush 2 (talked about a more modest FP and spoke out against nation-building!)

    Quote
    Mark
    1/28/2009 at 12:23 pm

  • Mark, Wish I had thought of those — especially Bush 2. Sounds like you are the real twentieth-century guy. Thanks for writing in, Brian, the momentary twentieth-century guy.

    Quote
    twentieth-century guy
    1/29/2009 at 1:40 pm

  • Hi,
    I’ve only heard your Presidential Transitions program, which I enjoyed. There was one point when you were discussing Polk provoking the Mexican War, and somehow the attitude in your conversation struck me as somehow disconcerting. You are intelligent, articulate, stimulating historians, and yet not noting that there was anything morally or ethically wrong with that war felt odd to me. I’m trying to formulate a question on the fly here, so bear with me. I think you do recognize, better than most, that all too often the actions of the US government and people have been entirely contradictory to the laws, values, and highest ideals that we profess and generally believe ourselves to be in accord with. And yet we accept this without much apparent outward regard to that contradiction. Is it too obvious to say that the war was a great injustice to the Mexican nation and people? And that we’re still living with the consequences? Perhaps. And then if you start, where do you stop? Native Americans, Africans, etc., etc. – you know the list better than I do, I’m sure.

    Nope, I can’t come up with a question there for you, so let me try something else. I’ve always been curious about Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision saying that Jackson had no right to remove the Native Americans from their lands east of the Mississippi. Isn’t that astounding? For one branch of government to completely delegitimize another branch’s authority? I’ve always wondered whether that could happen today. Is there any kind of safeguard to enforce the Supreme Court’s authority? Were there any consequences for Jackson? How did he get away with that? Any program around the Supreme Court that addresses these and related issues would be fascinating.

    Thanks again for your program!

    Quote
    Paul Calzada
    2/17/2009 at 10:59 am

  • Help me guys! There is a song about the Presidents near the last segment of this episode…who/what is it? I love it…the show as well!

    Quote
    Ross
    2/18/2009 at 7:53 am

  • Help me guys! There is a song about the Presidents near the last segment of this episode…who/what is it? I love it…the show as well!

    Ross -

    I find it exceedingly satisfying when listeners notice and get as much pleasure out of the interstitial music as I get putting it all together. The song is a little ditty by Jonathan Coulton, a Brooklyn-based musician whose work you’ll probably want to explore more extensively. Check it out: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2006/04/28/thing-a-week-30-the-presidents/

    Quote
    Tony (BackStory Producer)
    2/18/2009 at 12:41 pm

  • This show is a classic example of what disappoints me about modern media.
    Too much talk, too little information.
    Example One:

    The country never went into recession under Ronald Reagan (just like it did not under Barack O’Bama). The recession of 1980, which in part accounted for his election- deepened thru 1982: thus the “Reagan recession” was really a continuation of the recession from 1980. No Reagan policies were responsible for the Reagan recession- he took office with DOUBLE DIGIT INFLATION & UNEMPLOYMENT. Statistically, the situation was worse than it was in Jan 2009 when our current president was sworn in.
    Reagan was successful in getting his initial legislation past- just beyond the mythical “100 day” mark discussed on the program. The assassination attempt, referred to in the program, WAS key to changing Reagan fortunes, but did so at the beginning of his presidency. IN TERMS OF HIS PROGRAM, the spring of 1981 was the most success legislatively for the Reagan presidency’s domestic program. If you are discussing “transitions” and first years, one would have come to the opposite conclusion than what the host of your program stated (Reagan was unpopular in the first year (his popularity FINALLY ebbed by the end of the year when THE RECESSION DEEPENED- but his lows were not until well into mid 1982- then “HIS” recession ended, the boom began, and he won re-election.

    With regard to Henry Clay and Polk and the assertion that things would have been so much different had Clay won in 1844. Not true. Texas would have been annexed- in fact was- BEFORE Polk was sworn in (presidents did not take the oath until March (1845) then. It is true that Polk campaigned on the Texas and Oregon questions (he in fact wanted to claim Oregaon all the way up to the 54-40). But the forces behind the annexation of Texas went WAY BEYOND the slave question. Slavery was just the most salient issue in what was still yet a nation without an anti-slavery (against its extension) ajority. THE REAL DRIVING FORCE BEHIND CONGRESS’ ANNEXATION OF TEXAS: THE POLITICAL VACUUM. (American born) Texans wanted their nascient republic to be annexed by the United States- AND IF NOT, GREAT BRITIAN- because they feared that should stabliitly return to Mixican government, they would agian be taken by Mexico.

    This is key to understanding Polk’s ability to fulfill his California dream when taking office. (a NON- SLAVE DREAM AT THE TIME- in fact, California’s desire to be admitted as a FREE STATE almost tringgered civil war in 1850 (The infamous Compromise of 1850).

    Third: FDR FAVORED war with Germany and Japan long before 1941. While speaking in isolationist terms for political reasons, FDR was engagning the United States- Lend-Lease/ Destroyers for Bases- AND promised AMERICAN INTERVENTION WHEN SECRETLY MEETING WITH CHRUCHILL DURING THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN (see Atlantic Charter). Look up the GREER incident and our protection of convoys carrying war material to G.B. before Pearl Harbor.

    Fact is, politically presidents have a hard time STARTING A WAR, in the interest of national security, national economic development, in creating a balance of power within which peace and stability survives, or whatever reasons WITHOUT POPULAR SUPPORT.

    We the people supported the intervention in Iraq in 2003 (even without understanding all of the causes behind it), Afghanistan in 2002, Iraq/Kuwait in 1991, and even the Vietnam war effort when it was first escalated – 1964-1967.

    Wars of choice? Always a choice- if a war is not a good tradeoff, could always surrender what fighting would gain.
    Reagan recession? Never was one. The “Carter” recession deepened. Reagan got his hall mark tax cuts- and initial budget cuts- passed in his first months (if not 100 Days) seems relevant if you are talking about transitions and successful presidencies.

    Annexation of Texas? For political reasons- after 1836 (the Texas Republic), it was manifest destiny. Slavery or no, Polk or no, …….

    Quote
    Richard Walsh
    2/16/2010 at 11:36 am

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Leave a Reply