Amateur presidents on the other hand view the presidential role as one that fits him. An amateur president who assumes the role of a clerk is constantly occupied with strategies, strategies to complete one task and move on to the next. One of Neustadt’s primary examples of presidential clerkship is Harry S. Truman’s presidency. Neustadt claims that Truman “saw himself not as a man for whom the job was made, but as a man who had the job to do. He drew his confidence from seeing himself do it (Neustadt, p. 147). To a clerk, the position of the president has already been made. They are likened to professional presidents in that they exude confidence. However, their confidence draws from a different mindset. Truman was confident that he had the ability to do all the tasks that were required of him: make decisions, take initiatives, and be the “boss-and-spokesperson.” As a clerk, Truman did not allow self-interest overtake his responsibilities (Neustadt, p. 147). The idea of separating man from office is a key concept of the presidential clerk. Pre-modern presidents act with the vision that their presidencies are whatever they make it to be. Like clerk presidents, they have the nation’s best interest in mind. Unlike clerk presidents, a pre-modern president’s self interest is the nation’s best interest. Their goal in every action is to increase their power stakes and build their reputation. Meanwhile, clerk president’s goal is to implement a strategy that seems to be the best fit in situations. Amateur clerk presidents do not employ the full extents of their power while professional pre-modern presidents not only utilizes the full extent of their powers but in such a way that benefits their own self interest. Applying Neustadt’s concept... ... middle of paper ... ...ers, besides the responding party and the president himself, are aware of the president’s actions and can hold the responding party accountable if necessary actions are not taken (Neustadt, p. 21). The fourth condition is that the respondent must have the ability to carry out the command. It seems reasonable that the respondent must possess the tools that necessary for their action (Neustadt, p. 22). The final condition is that what the president wants from the respondent is the president’s by right. There must be a sense of legitimate obligation that was imposed (Neustadt, p. 23). These five conditions give little room for responders to maneuver, making it easier for the president’s commands to be executed. Nevertheless, an executive command does not create lasting effects in any situation; it merely removes an obstacle from the president’s course (Neustadt, p. 26).
In the book Theodore Roosevelt by Louis Auchincloss, I learned a great deal about the twenty-sixth President of the United States of America. Former President T. Roosevelt made many accomplishments as president, and did not have a high number of scandals. Roosevelt did very well in keeping the peace between the different countries, which earned him many admirers and the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. The author’s purpose for writing Theodore Roosevelt was to tell his readers all about America’s former president, Theodore Roosevelt’s life. Louis Auchincloss did a great job at describing President T. Roosevelt’s life from Teddy’s childhood, his life before presidency, to all of Teddy’s accomplishments as president, and finally to his life after his
Examining the conceptualizations and theories of Neustadt and Skowronek’s in comparative perspective, this essay makes the principal argument that both of these theories only represent partial explanations of how success and efficiency is achieved in the context of the Presidency. With Neustadt focusing saliently on the President’s micro-level elite interactions and with Skowronek adopting a far more populist and public opinion-based framework, both only serve to explain some atomistic facets of the Presidency. As such, neither is truly collectively exhaustive, or mutually exclusive of the other, in accounting for the facets of the Presidency in either a modern day or historical analytical framework. Rather, they can best be viewed as complementary theories germane to explaining different facets of the Presidency, and the different strengths and weaknesses of specific Administrations throughout history.
Of the most powerful people in the world, the President of the United States of America hits the top of the list. Even though the policy agendas that presidents set as they take office often go unfulfilled, the office of President is still one of the most envied spots to have. But why could this be? It is because the United States is the most powerful nation in the world and with the President as the leader, he is said to have the most power in the world ("Top Ten Most Powerful Countries in the World"). With power comes responsibility and with this position he must govern a country while abiding by the rules.
Sidney M. Milkis, Michael Nelson. The American Presidency Origins & Development, 1776-2011. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2008.
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.
Andrew Jackson, revered as the first common man to become President, symbolized the average citizen having the opportunity to climb the ranks within America 's democratic system. However, the profits of Jackson 's administration succeed in concealing his immoral procedures and behavior. Jackson 's methods worked accordingly to the reasoning of the father of political science, Machiavelli, who said, “The end justifies the means”. He achiev...
The most important phase that Neustadt argues about the presidency and presidents is the persuasion power. He writes that the president cannot simply command “do this, do that”, as we all know “nothing will happen”. Different branches of the government have different constituencies and different interests. To make things happen, the president must use his bargaining skill to persuade others. Neustadt, to back his view gives a historical prove in which president Truman,
War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia Commons. The War Powers Resolution states that the President s powers as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces (War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance).... ... middle of paper ... ...
As soon as Andrew Jackson came into office, he fired 10% of the government’s employees, mainly from the post office, and placed his own supporters into the vacated posts. This may not have been a problem if he replaced these workers with people who were qualified, but the vast majority of Andrew Jackson’s appointments were incompetent. Thus, the government became bloated and less efficient. Andrew Jackson development of a special system to reward his cronies with government jobs without formal training, demonstrates that Andrew Jackson should be remembered as
The War Powers Act or sometimes referred to as the War Powers Resolution is passed by congress. A group of Senators led by Jacov K. Javits of New York proposes fundamentally to change the constitutional relationship between President and Congress in the field of foreign affairs (Rostow). This act is an aftermath of the Vietnam War and it addresses a set of procedure for both President and Congress in the situation where the United States forces abroad could lead the United States into armed conflict. This act can be broken down into several parts. The first part asserts the policy behind the law, and the President’s power as a Commander in Chief is exercised only as a respond to declaration of war by Congress or in respond to national emergency; an attack upon the United States. The second part requires the President to discuss and consult with Congress before take an action in the U.S. Armed forces into hostilities and continue to discuss as long as the U.S. Armed forces remain in such condition. The third part explains that President should meet the requirement when he wants to introduce U.S Armed forces. The fourth part concerns more in congressional action and procedure. For instance, this part explains the procedure regarding legislation to withdraw the U.S. forces. The fifth part states the rules to be used in interpreting the War Power Act. At last, the sixth part explains separability provision in which if there is any part of the law is invalid, the rest of the law shall not considered invalid too.
The presidency of the United Sates of America has been an evolving office since the term of our first president, George Washington. This evolution has occurred because of the changing times and the evolution of society itself, but also because of the actions of the men who have become president. Starting in the 20th century, most have referred to the presidency as the modern presidency due to changes in both a president's power and the way that the office itself is viewed. As the office of the president has evolved so has who can become president evolved. Yet, even today there are certain individuals who because of their gender or race have yet to hold the office of the presidency. The men that have been president in our modern era have all had faults and greatness, some having more of one than of the other. The modern presidency is an office that many aspire to, but that few hold. The evolution of the office of the presidency has been one from that of a traditional role to that of a modern role that is forever evolving.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
Lowi, Theodore J. (1985). The personal President: Power invested promise unfulfilled. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
The executive branch has progressed overtime. “Early presidents relied on their cabinets to develop policy and submit it directly to congress” (Morone & Ehlke, 2013). Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency the executive branch relied less on their cabinets and overlapped “advisors, committees, and programs” (2013). These loosely run roles have changed with President Obama’s presidency.
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.