In this article Bruce Miroff explains what a presidential spectacle is and how it relates to the government of the United States and its presidents. A spectacle is a kind of symbolic event, one in which particular details stand for broader and deeper meanings. At spectacle also presents intriguing and often dominating characters not in static poses but through actions that establish their public identities. A spectacle does not permit the audience to interrupt the action and redirect its meaning. The most distinctive characteristic of a spectacle is that the actions that constitute it are meaningful not for what they achieve but for what they signify. What is important is that they be understandable and impressive to the spectators. The mass …show more content…
It is really odd to make a comparison about this three, but there is a lot to say about it. He says that professional wrestling is completely different than boxing by seeing professional wrestling as a spectacle where you know what the result is going to be because the outcome is preordained. Professional wrestling have the evil character threatening the good character and he beats him until the point the good character rises up to have his revenge and win the match. In the other hand boxing is completely different because you never know who is going to win the match. It is just like what presidents do where they compete for power and policy with others, where the outcomes are uncertain. The presidency is presented by the White House the same way as professional wrestling does by putting a main character supported by its team engaging in debates with immoral or dangerous …show more content…
The foreign affairs spectacle was showing Bush as the perfect president with masterful leadership skills and a powerhouse team. In the other hand the domestic spectacle display Bush as a confused leader with a colorless team. The foreign policy team was seem as cool, intelligent and worthy. What it boost the foreign policy spectacle was the Operation Desert Storm which lacked on destroying the enemy, but as military display, it provided Americans with numerous scenes to cheer. Otherwise the domestic Bush was awful, especially when it came to economics. The only economic plan he ever put forward without any problem was a cut in the capital gains tax rate that would only benefit wealthy investors. His economic team was dim, anyone notice them and barely registered in the public consciousness. He was completely disengaged from the ordinary people and
...ous statements it can be inferred that in some ways the Obama administration was like the Bush Administration in terms of foreign national policies. Obama also made poor choices by expanding on Bush policies that were already a dangerous jaunt from constitutional practices. Another thing Obama did was increase our expenditures by the billions, which can cause harm in his domestic reform agendas, and might lead to divisive and expensive foreign wars.
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.
Beginning with a comparative analysis of the manner in which Neustadt and Skowronek conceptualize of the Presidency itself, the essay notes that Neustadt’s theory operates at the micro level while Skowronek’s operates at the macro level. Arguing that this difference is salient in creating a division of labor between the two, the essay moves forward to examine each theory’s ability to expatiate upon differences between Presidents by applying them to both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Noting Neustadt’s superiority vis-à-vis Johnson and Skowronek’s greater potency as it pertains to Nixon, and how Reagan best shows the strengths and weaknesses of both authors, this essay proposes that this discussion lends further support to the notion that each theory is best suited to examining different facets of the Presidency.
As the President of the United States, a president has powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what presidential power is. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Richard Neustadt stated in his book Presidential Power that “Presidential power is the power to persuade.
The presidency of Theodore Roosevelt is well known in the general public and his actions still stand strong in our society today. President Trump’s election was a shock to many that thought Hilary Clinton was a shoe-in for the seat. Trump has already made an impact that will likely be remembered for many years to come. Although there are slight differences, President Trump and former President Teddy Roosevelt are alike in many ways. These ways include their backgrounds, their physical uniqueness, their personalities, and their policies. Taking a detailed look at the comparison of two presidents can lead to a more in depth, applicable way of studying history.
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.
Bush opens his speech by acknowledging the events of September 11, and those that lost the lives of loved ones and to those that gave their life trying to save others in the buildings. He appeals to those that remain strong by saying that, “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.” His use of pathos helps Bush to calm and control the public in order to keep the country together. This
The best way to examine this speech is through a speech-act methodology. Speaker-setting and speaker-audience relationships are key in the analysis of this situation. Before answering the proposed research question we can ask another important question. Why did former President Bill Clinton choose to give this address? According to the Hart text several things must be true. 1. The speaker feels something is wrong. After several rounds of questioning the American public was growing ti...
This paper is an analysis of the inaugural address of the former president Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). We will focus on the main historical events that were happening, and how he addressed those issues in his speech. In his speech he used appeals to grow closer to the crowd he was speaking too. We will state the quotes he used and announce what kind of appeal that it is from. FDR uses words and phrases to pull the crowd in and I will discuss the effects of those words and what they had on the crowd. Finally we will talk about the overall quality and effectiveness of the speech and how it was such a great speech used.
Krull, Kathleen, and Kathryn Hewitt. Lives of the Presidents: Fame, Shame, and What the Neighbors Thought. San Diego: Harcourt Brace &, 1998. Print
Understanding and evaluating presidents’ performance often poses challenges for political experts. The nation votes one president at the time and each presidency faces different tests. The environments surrounding a presidency have a tremendous impact on the success and failure of that presidency. In addition, the president exercises his power through a check and balance system embody in the Constitution. As stated in (Collier 1959), the Constitution created a government of “separated institutions sharing power.” As a result, a president works with others institutions of the government to shape the nation’s agenda. Thus, determining a presidential performance becomes difficult, especially when it comes to comparing the performance among presidencies.
This created much disbelief and shock across the grid. To summarize his entire presidential campaign in one word, it would simply be “different”. It is worth noting that Trump has taken an extreme approach against what is normally expected, and that resulted in one of the most divided political stances up to date. “David Robinson, who performed a statistical analysis of the President-elect's Twitter account in August, said Mr. Trump's tendency to tweet like an "entertainer" meant he was able to garner the “interest" of the American people, which in turn boosted his chances of election success”(Independent.co.uk 1). His appeal to emotion has personally benefited himself to the point where he remained a key subject of interest throughout the entire election. Whether or not he was favored, he was the most focused on topic for widespread
Howell’s theory of unilateral action describes a more isolated president. But this does not mean that his insistence on unilateral presidential action is not valid or does not provide us with a valuable model for analyzing presidential power. Howell is certainly right in pointing that Congressional oversight is made more difficult by the multiplication of the unilateral tools the President can use to alter policies. The criticism stems from the fact that his book’s title seems to give the impression that his theory comes as an irreconcilable alternative to Neustadt’s version of presidential power of “persuasiveness”. Alternatively, Neustadt’s theory suffers from an institutional level analysis. Skrownek (1991) in his book, “The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton” have suggested that there are clear patterns of contextual circumstances that may explain the variation in presidential leadership. While not denying a role of personal attributes he clearly demonstrated that personal contributions of presidents cannot be truly understood without an appreciation of the institutional contexts in which they operate (Skrownek
The aim of this paper is to look at the relationship between the mass media, specifically television, and presidential elections. This paper will focus on the function of television in presidential elections through three main areas: exit polls, presidential debates, and spots. The focus is on television for three reasons. First, television reaches more voters than any other medium. Second, television attracts the greatest part of presidential campaign budgets. Third, television provides the candidates a good opportunity to contact the people directly. A second main theme of this paper is the role of television in presidential elections in terms of representative democracy in the United States.
On July 27, 2004, Barack Obama made arguably his most important speech, “The Audacity of Hope”, at the Democratic National Convention Keynote Address. These conventions are for political parties to announce a winner for nomination. All the way through his piece, Obama focuses on connecting Americans and himself to the audience. In fact, at the time, Barack Obama was a US Senate candidate for the United States president, and in making this speech, was offered a window for raising his popularity. Throughout “The Audacity of Hope” speech, Barack Obama implements three main devices to raise his political popularity: repetition, abstract language, and structure.