Discrepant presidents historically outperform congruent ones

Evidence

Some examples will illustrate these two conclusions. Abraham Lincoln is generally considered to be one of the two greatest American presidents. Yet he was one of four major candidates in 1860, elected with only a minority of the total popular vote. His motive profile was highly discrepant with that of American society in the 1860s; in fact, he is among the half dozen most discrepant presidents. Some others with motive profiles highly discrepant from their times include: Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy—all highly rated by historians. And some congruent presidents include Buchanan, Grant, Harding, and Coolidge—three of whom are considered to be failures if not outright disasters. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1362

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Electorally successful presidents fit their era’s motives while historically great presidents contradict them — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 404; Presidential popularity depends on personality fit with the era, but greatness does not — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1278; Presidential popularity stems from matching voters’ motives while historical success reflects leader personality. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 118 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The greatest presidents were least congruent with their society’s motives #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1361
• Lincoln’s greatness coincided with a motive profile highly discrepant from his era #exemplifies (0.95)
• Electorally successful presidents fit their era’s motives while historically great presidents contradict them #corroborates (0.90) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 404
• Presidential popularity depends on personality fit with the era, but greatness does not #expands (0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1278
• Presidential popularity stems from matching voters’ motives while historical success reflects leader personality. #corroborates (0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 118