Reputation in Rupture: Broken Alliances and Relational Politics in the Roosevelt‐Taft Split

Abstract

Under what circumstances do close allies sacrifice their unity? By what process do bonds break? Although it might be argued that political ruptures are determined by incommensurable ideas (policies, philosophies) or by contentious personalities (temperament, character), we argue that neither explanation is sociologically sufficient. Extending the theories of interpersonal ruptures of Diane Vaughan and Robert Emerson to political domains, we take a relational approach to politics by emphasizing the centrality of the availability of reputational information, networks of supporters, and public displays of antagonism in response to affronts within systems of institutional power. Our approach to public ruptures draws on a detailed case study: the broken alliance between presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, a dramatic instance of changing master‐protégé relationship. The transition from close interpersonal alliance to public distaste typically involves four stages that expand a relational breach to an irreparable rupture: (1) personal grievance, (2) substantive disagreement, (3) public awareness, and (4) network activity. While every detailed case has limits, we note comparable instances and contend that this model applies broadly to broken partnerships in politics or other public domains.