January 20th, 2017, marked a new era for the United States of America. On this foggy, rainy day, President Donald Trump gave his inaugural address in front of an estimated crowd of 900,000 people. Eight years earlier, on a clear sunny day, former president Barak Obama gave his first inaugural address, in front of an estimated crowd of 1.8 million people. The weather and number of attendees were not the only noticeable differences at the ceremonies and when examining both closely, definite contradictions can be made in terms of the “Balance of Power”. The following essay will hold a comparison of the two inaugural addresses in terms of “Hard”, “Soft” and “Smart” power, and will focus primarily on the presidents’ take on foreign policy, specifically …show more content…
The differences between the two are extraordinarily vast and as such, the presented foreign policy approaches on the matter of radical Islam were no different. In order to analyze the similarities and (inevitable) differences using “Hard”, “Soft” and “Smart” power, it is important to understand the proper definition of each, commencing with the definition of “Power”. International relation studies define “Power” as “The ability to influence another to act in a way that entity would not have acted otherwise”, claiming that there are multiple methods to achieve it, the first of three being “Hard power”. “Hard power” is defined as “The use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies”. Research explains that this form of power is most effective when used by a strong political body against a political body with restricted military and/or economic resources (Nye, 2008 ;Willson III, …show more content…
This method of power is often associated with countries who posses a democratic political philosophy and can credibly establish a structured agenda, based on shared interests, values, and culture. A nation’s source of soft power is derived from its culture (when appealing), political values (when acted upon) and foreign policies as long as they are globally perceived as legitimate and moral. Ultimately, this method allows political actors to achieve political goals without compromising their nation’s perception in the international arena. Finally, the last of the three methods of power is referred to as “Smart power” which is essentially “The capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actor’s purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently” (Nye, 2008 ;Willson III, 2008). The United States of America is a nation that is predominantly correlated with its pure democratic values and as such, the most commonly attributed method of power is none other than “Soft power”. While the use of “Soft power” appears to be accurate when examining Obama’s inaugural address and mentions of radical Islam , the same cannot be said for Trump. In contrast, Trump sets an overall aggressive tone
Stephen Skowronek writes about political time and how one can determine the legacy a president will leave behind at the time their presidency is done. The president has immense powers when he comes to office, but the challenges they each face vary depending on the time they take office. Skowronek analyzes and demonstrates that the most essential factor for a president to attempt to legitimize his actions and orders will be the actions of the president before him. Following the actions of George W. Bush is how we can determine where Barack Obama falls under and follow the chain to the next president. If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election, she would fall under the politics of articulation and Barack Obama would fall under the politics of pre-emption.
Franklin Roosevelt’s speech says the following, “Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.” Roosevelt uses words such as “stubbornness”, “incompetence”, and “unscrupulous” to underline the absence of morals in these money changers that have failed the American people. Barack Obama’s speech says the following, “Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” Obama uses words such as “violence”, “hatred”, and “weakened” to stress the wrongdoing that have been committed by the previous leaders of the country. Both of the presidents use emotive language to illustrate the wrongdoings that have been committed by the previous
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.
The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Known as one of the most influential senators in American history, William J. Fulbright served as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 through 1974, and at his death in 1995, he was the group’s longest serving reader. During this time, he authored “On the Arrogance of Power, 1966”, in which discussed the tendency of countries to equate power as proof of superiority. In fact, he Fulbright refers to “the arrogance of power – as a psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better, or stronger than other nations” (1). Using a combination of pathos, ethos, and logos appeals, he presents support for his argument. Because power corrupts how people and
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be addressed by the government, when it comes to the presidency, one person, although checked by various other divisions of the same government, has the power and responsibility to literally, as history has proven, change the world. The American people, "like all people everywhere, want to have our (political) cake and eat it too. We want a lot of leadership, but we are notoriously lousy followers" (Genovese). In other words the expectations the public has of the executive office are ever-changing since we demand that our leaders keep up with the evolving world around us and them. Throughout the past seventy eventful years alone, the American people's views, perceptions and demands of the Executive Office of American government have evolved simultaneously with the political and social events of that same time period.
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.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Almost every conflict situation consists of one party having more power than the other. When the power differential is significant, this usually has a major effect on both the matter and process of the dispute. In order for the outcome of the conflict to be fair, both parties must be relatively equal when it comes to power if resolution of the conflict is to be fair. If one side is far more powerful than another, they are more likely to impose their solution on the weaker party, who in turn will be forced to acquiesce, because they have no other choice.
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.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.