[216] Morgan suggests that this relatively low ranking is the result of a perception among historians that while many decisions during McKinley's presidency profoundly affected the nation's future, he more followed public opinion than led it, and that McKinley's standing has suffered from altered public expectations of the presidency.[228]
There has been broad agreement among historians that McKinley's election occurred at a time of a transition between two political eras, dubbed the Third and Fourth Party Systems.[229] Kenneth F. Warren emphasizes the national commitment to a pro-business, industrial, and modernizing program represented by McKinley.[230] Historian Daniel P. Klinghard argued that McKinley's personal control of the 1896 campaign gave him the opportunity to reshape the presidency—rather than simply follow the party platform—by representing himself as the voice of the people.[231] Republican Karl Rove exalted McKinley as the model for a sweeping political realignment behind George W. Bush in the 2000s[232]—a realignment that did not happen. Some political scientists, such as David Mayhew, questioned whether the 1896 election truly represented a realignment, thereby placing in issue whether McKinley deserves credit for it.