Different Aspects Weakening the Presidency The presidency is commonly misperceived as a position of absolute power. On the contrary, presidential scholars Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, and Gary Rose, The American Presidency Under Siege, argue the presidency is better characterized in terms of weaknesses. Their identification of contributing factors to weakened presidency differ in degree, execution, and form. Neustadt and Rose focus on two separate areas affecting the presidency and its effectiveness, each taking into account different aspects of the presidency while ignoring others. Neustadt's view of a model president is one who is active, yet conservative of his power. The President should have knowledge, understanding and vision. He should measure each situation with cost-analysis mentality, only pursuing what can be accomplished successfully. The President is actively involved in acquisition of power. Using professional reputation and public prestige, the President can increase bargaining power. By building a record of success, the President can become more influential through presidential persuasion, in policy making, and conserve presidential power. According to Neustadt, persuasion measures power. The President is responsible for actions contributing to gaining and losing of presidential power. Presidential power is based upon skill and not upon circumstance. Neustadt tailors his argument to fit individualistic means of effectiveness. Rose shifts the increasing weakness problem away from the President and places it on outside factors, blaming the system of governing and party decli... ... middle of paper ... ...Washington affiliation. An outsider president can increase is ability to bargain if term limits are not imposed. Even a Washington outsider can eventually find his niche and be effective, but not if he is limited. Lame duck views of a second term president decrease his bargaining power and effectiveness. Neustadt and Rose identify factors which contribute to weaknesses of the presidency, but fail to recognize the big picture. Both analysis are narrow and focus on only specific issues. Neustadt's arguments are favorable, because they allow the President to take an active role in acquisitioning power. Rose's views of a helpless president, dependent on outside reform to function, are impracticable. It is hard to believe that the President is so debilitated that he can not on his own actively attain and retain power.
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.
As the President of the United States, a president have 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 is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
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 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,
... in office and how the congress will act toward the President; whether he be a President that demands respect or one who forfeits it and whether the Congress gives in to the demands of the Executive or if the Congress comes down on t he Executive like a hammer on a nail. This can be accomplished by viewing the circumstances in which a President takes office, the manner in which he carries himself during his term, and the way in which the President leaves as Commander in Chief. Conclusion: The President has neither gained nor lost power. There exists the same balance between Executive and Congress as there was when Washington was sworn in as America's first President. The only difference between then and now, is the fact that today we must wade through the layers of insignificance and precedents that history has forged against us, the political thinker and historian.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
In chapter eight in The Balancing the Presidential Seesaw (2000), Vaughan offers additional observations and recommendations for future presidents. As a former president, Vaughan observation is clear that “presidency is not about headlines – whether to make or avoid them – it is about working hard day in and day out, year in and year out” to accomplish the community college’s goal (Vaughan, 2000, p.
Despite ‘The West Wing’ having seven seasons, the TV show easily gets through crises without the need of bureaucracy debates. In the modern day politics, it may take years to propose solutions to national problems. The President may feel urgent need to solve a certain problem, but it will need to pass through his cabinets before ever making its way to actually solving a situation. ‘The West Wing’ simply accomplishes the task of making the challenges of today’s government look easy to the viewer. Rosenberg writes, “There are few impasses an eloquent appeal cannot solve, and almost no foreign-policy conundrum for which a clever solution cannot be conceived” (3). For example, throughout the show, the concern of foreign policy is a point of stress on the President’s agenda. However, instead of using realistic problem solving methods, Aaron Sorkin proves that “national interests are no match for our protagonist’s force of personality” (4). It seems that in ‘The West Wing’, the personalities of the characters help to solve national problems, when in reality it is far from the truth. The constituents of the show further add in the lack of realistic education, proving that the show is strictly for entertainment value
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.
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.
On June 25, 2004, Academy Award-winning filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a controversial film, Fahrenheit 9/11, to the nation, that examined the actions of the Bush Administration in the time period following the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001. The film was protested by the nation’s conservatives and thought to be rather comical to the nation’s liberals due to the way that Moore portrayed President George W. Bush and the rest of the Republican Party. Moore showed in detail the different events or decisions that he felt were disputable from Bush’s presidency, including the way he feels Bush unfairly powers the nation’s population into following that of the power elite. We will use Mills’s Power Elite Theory to argue that President George W. Bush and the power elite exercise their power over the American people through the many decisions and policies they make on our country.
Presidents of the United States take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In times of crisis, however, presidents are tempted to circumvent the spirit of the Constitution in the name of political expediency. The president of the United States of America is frequently under pressure, which could be for something as simple as dealing with his wife (especially if she's running for the US Senate), but usually the problem is more extensive. Then, the whole nation is affected, and the problem becomes a national crisis. A widespread panic is possible. The president must propose a plan to aid his nation while keeping the public under control. Lincoln. Roosevelt and Truman proposed bills to stop or prevent the national crises that plagued the country.
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.