Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Presidential power in the usa
Presidential power in the usa
Traits of a good president
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Presidential power in the usa
Choosing a president can be very challenging. There are many things we as citizens look for in a candidate. For example, goals, visions, etc. We always want what is best for our country and for our families. James D. Barber looks into one thing, which is the candidate’s character. This essay will explain James D. Barber’s theory. It will also criticize the placement of five presidents in the typology he has created. James D. Barber is a man who explains to us how we should elect a president. He bases his analysis on the candidate’s character. The character can be, the way this individual views the world. It can be the style of government; it can also be the way this individual relates to others. With this theory, James has created a typology. This typology has four categories, Active positive described as the “best” president. Second, Active-negative described as the “worst” president. Third, Passive-positive described as a weak president. Last, passive- negative also described as a weak president. James has evaluated many presidents and placed them in this typology like, JFK, Bush, Eisenhower, Hoover, Wilson, Reagan and many more. It is fair to He evaluated him under active-negative, which is known as “the worst” president. The reason why I agree with him is because Nixon’s character was not the best. Yes, he had great experience because he had been a congress man, US senator and vice president. Nevertheless, he still failed as president. He did not really have a view on the world. His obsession for power had blinded him; he believed he was on top of the law because he was president. He was also not very loyal to the people. Nixon lied about ending America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. However, he increased the involvement. Nixon was impeached, but before that happened he decided to resign. I personally believe that if a president does not have a good character, he will not be very
Skowornek writes, “these presidents each set out to retrieve from a far distant, even mythic, past fundamental values that they claim had been lost in the indulgences of the received order, In this way, the order-shattering and order-affirming impulses of the presidency in politics became mutually reinforcing.” (Skowornek, 37, book). These presidents are in the best position not because they are exceptional at their job but because the time they came into office offered them the elasticity and authority to make new orders and be welcomed by the public because he is taking the country out of its troubles and challenges.
...he end, the analysis conducted above makes it clear that neither Neustadt’s nor Skowronek’s theories are unified theories of the Presidency which are capable of explaining the full range of variation as it pertains to Presidential records and histories. Rather, each theory is best conceptualized of as representing a single sphere of the Presidency, and each thus serves to potently explain Presidentially-related phenomena which fall within their scope conditions and reach. With this in mind, it is difficult to conceive of a single theory being capable of explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency. Rather, and as elaborated upon above, each is most successful in the context of its scope conditions, and theoretical hybridization likely represents the best pathway towards explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency.
The "Checkers Speech" saved Nixon's career, what was left of it.. Eisenhower kept him on the ticket just because of his looks and he went on to serve eight years as Vice President. He wanted to win by a lot. In 1960 Nixon ran for President, losing a close race to John F. Kennedy. The smell of hope. He was paranoid. Two years later he lost a bitter race for Governor of California to Pat Brown and retired from politics, telling the press, "There is always next year. He was paranoid.
Have you ever watched the Presidential Inaugural Address? Well, you should because you can learn what the new president wants to do with the country you are living in. I analyzed Barack Obama and George Washington’s Inaugural Addresses. There were many differences and similarities between Barack Obama and George Washington’s that I will further explain in this essay. One difference was that Obama’s speech was about trust while Washington’s was about the citizens rights for the new nation. One similarity is that both speeches talked about what each person wanted to do as president. Barack Obama and George Washington's Inaugural Addresses made a big impact on the country.
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
I believe that Nixon was all around a bad president. His escalation of the Vietnam War, his poorly chosen officials, and the Watergate Scandal all added up to the American people losing their trust in the presidency. This was the flaw that broke his presidency in my eyes. Works Cited Black, Conrad. Richard M. Nixon:
Because of the controversial issues surrounding President G.W. Bush before and during the time of his reelection, the acceptance speech that he delivered is an important piece of literature to study. This diplomatic speech is a piece of rhetorical contribution because the motives and meanings behind any President’s speech is significant to us as citizens of the United States of America. It further warrants our attention because if the audience is able to comprehend the inner meanings and motives behind a presidential speech, then they will eventually be able to differentiate the actual stances and platforms of future presidential candidates and nominees.
In presidency, character is everything. Born on February 6, 1911, Ronald Reagan, “Dutch,” never knew that he would grow up to be famous. He served two terms as governor of California, but before that he starred in Hollywood films. Originally a liberal Democrat, Reagan ran for the U.S. presidency as a conservative Republican and won, his term beginning in 1980. Ronald Reagan became the oldest President elected when he took office as the 40th President of the United States. He was also the first U.S. president after Dwight D. Eisenhower to get re-elected and finish two complete terms in office. Reagan was president from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1989. He was an effective president, measured by his popularity and by his influence on history. This former U.S. president is given rightful credit for three large historic gains during his presidency: First, he won the Cold War without firing a shot, then, he revived the American economy that resulted in substantial growth and lastly, he restored the traditional spirit of can-do optimism to the American people who in the late 1970's were dispirited. These three historic proceedings successfully improved American prosperity and peace through strength, elevating Reagan’s presidency to that of American exceptionalism.
I will start with explaining Neustadt’s arguments about presidential power in his book. Then further my answer to the extent in which compare other political scholars, Skowronek, Howell and Edwards in response to Neustadt’s points of view about American presidency.
Poll data seems to suggest that in general public's evaluation presidential greatness is shortsighted. When asked to identify whom they considered the greatest president, over 53% voted for a president whose term in office occurred after the latter half of the 20th century. Of the 17 presidents who received votes, 11 had served after 1950 and only four served prior to 1900. At the top of the list was Ron...
In conclusion, there are different methods and approaches for studying the presidency. All of these approaches contribute in some way to the study of the presidency and increase our understanding of the president, his behavior, his power, and the institution of the presidency itself. However, I believe that future presidential research within political science should focus on being more systematic and scientific. Although historical studies and case studies are helpful for understanding specific presidents, they are not necessarily helpful for understanding the institution of the presidency in general. I think future research should focus on an institutional approach that also considers personal characteristics representing important aspects of presidential power.
Nixon showed hubris, which is also known as egotistical behavior or exhibiting too much pride. He thought that he deserved to be reelected as president, even if in order for this to occur he had to behave in an unethical manner. The Watergate Scandal proved that Nixon was confident in his ability to pull off a major crime, although he was caught. This event also shows prideful behavior because he thought he could control the law and the election, even if he wasn’t the rightful winner.
When it comes to United States Presidents, everyone has an opinion of each president’s effectiveness. It takes character and talent to hold up to the stress of the White House. One aspect of a leader that measures their effectiveness is their capability to handle a crisis; another is their ability to make decisions for the betterment of whomever they lead, while still taking in all opinions. One example of an extremely effective president that successfully used those qualities was Abraham Lincoln.
James David Barber simplifies his theory by dividing character into four different group patterns. He tries to support his theory and convince people that one person can be subjected to one group. A person who is considered active-positive is a person who has a high self esteem, values productivity, and is constantly working towards their own personal goals. An active-positive person is also considered well adapted (Barber 12). Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, were all - according to Barber, considered to be active-positive people (McGuire). An active-negative character puts excessive effort into their work but does not receive or feel their own emotional reward. They are rarely satisfied with the work they have done. They are also said to have compulsive and perferctionistic personalities (Barber 12). Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Abraham Lincoln, and Lyndon Baines Johnson were judged to be active-negative. William Taft, and Warren Harding, labeled as receptive, compliant, affection seeking, agreeable, and easily manipulated people. In Barber terms they are considered to be passive-positive (McGuire and Barber 12). The final group, called passive-negative, consists of people who are not enthusiastic about politics, have a low self-esteem, do not have much experience, are vague, but feel that they have a certain civic duty. The best example of a person who was passive-negative would be America's first president, George Washington; he did not necessarily want to be the president, or at least not the first president of America.
So how does this former leader of the free world compare to Macbeth? Before they achieved their positions of power to govern or rule all, both Nixon and Macbeth spent many years being heavily respected amongst their peers. Nixon spent many years as a respected congressman and Macbeth as a soldier and Thane of Glamis. They used the way people viewed them to their advantage to gain a position of power. Nixon used his experience to get him elected president. Macbeth was made Thane of Cawdor and eventually king. Once they both ascended to their respected roles they did whatever it took to protect themselves from any possible threats. Nixon cheated by trying to steal opponents campaign secrets thus giving him an unfair advantage.