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. The constitutional... ... middle of paper ... ...aign. Works Cited Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Theda Skocpol. Health Care Reform and American Politics: Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Carol L. Silva, and Richard W. Waterman. "Micro- and Macrolevel Models of the Presidential Expectations Gap." The Journal of Politics 67.03 (2005): 690- 715. Print. Rivers, Douglas, and Nancy L. Rose. "Passing the President's Program: Public Opinion and Presidential Influence in Congress." American Journal of Political Science 29.2 (1985): 183-96. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014. Stephenson, Matthew C. "Does Separation of Powers Promote Stability and Moderation?" The Journal of Legal Studies 42.2 (2013): 331-68. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014. Wayne, Stephen J. Personality and Politics: Obama for and against Himself. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2012. Print.
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
Norman Ornstein is regarded as one of our nation's foremost experts on Congress. Mr. Ornstein received a Ph.D.. from the University of Michigan, he writes for the NewYork Times, USA Today, Washington Post, and he has a regular column in Roll Call newspaper called 'Congress Inside Out';. Mr. Ornstein is also an election analyst for CBS and appears frequently on television shows including the Today Show, Nightline and the Mac Neil/Lehre News Hour where he has been a consultant and contributor for
Richard Neustadt identifies three specific traits a person must possess in order to succeed as president of the United States of America. He stated that “the presidency is not a place for amateurs” and candidates must meet specific traits if they are to succeed at commanding one of the world’s largest and strongest nations. The three criteria he believed that a man must possess in order to succeed as president include the power to persuade, a professional reputation, and a public prestige. Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan are three presidents who were elected to power at three very different eras of American history. The following research paper will examine how each of these three men succeeded and failed at meeting Neustadt’s criteria of presidential greatness. In addition, this research paper will compare and contrast the successes and failures of the three men and finally, the paper will conclude by offering a personal consideration of what I believe makes a truly great president.
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.
Barrett, Andrew, and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha. "Presidential Success on the Substance of Legislation." Political Research Quarterly. 60.1 (2007): 100-112. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
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.
South University Online. (2013). POL2076: American Government: Week 4: People and Politics—Interest Groups. Retrieved from http://myeclassonline.com
However, in more recent times, presidents have become more dominant and powerful. It is certainly more common to hear: “The President of the United States – the most powerful man in the world,” than it would be to hear: “The Speaker of the House of Representatives – the most powerful man in the world.” Udall’s speech demonstrates the idea that if a restored sense of humility is brought back to the presidency, respect and unity between the president and US citizens will follow
Should it be evaluated in term of “success” or “influence?” (Collier 1959), suggested that some studies have chosen to focus on success while others have examined the influence. However, most studies have a focus on the presidential success arguing that, emphasis on presidential influence is too narrow. On the other hand, (Collier 1959) argued that, given the problem of the government responsiveness in a system of separate institutions sharing power, it is important to analyze the conditions that might lead to the presidential success rather the success alone. Nonetheless, to find out why success is studied more frequently than influence, required an understanding of the difference between success and influence. According to (Collier 1959), Success evaluated presidential performance in terms of the passage of the legislation supported by the President. Influence emphasizes the president’s ability to alter the actions of others. In other words, success measures the outcome (Example of Roll call votes) whereas, influence measures the pre-outcome (The president ability’s to gather people behind his vision, ability to control or persuade members of Congress, the ability to convince others to do as he
In our society today, television offers unrealistic glimpses at presidential candidates. The media is more concerned with making every president an iconic American pop-star instead of portraying them as a potential leader. According to Source B, “because of television’s celebrity system, Presidents are losing their distinctiveness as social actors and hence are often judged by standards formerly used to assess rock singers and movie stars”. We don’t remember what bill or law they passed or even how they
The American Academy of Political and Social Science The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science,(2013)
Presidential power has always been controversial. Congress and the Judiciary have clashed with both Bush and Clinton administrations over matters of executive privilege, impeachment, and the war on terror. Almost all modern presidents have moved to expand their power. So it is an even bet that given the foreign policy challenges of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea—not to mention the disruptions to the domestic economy of the credit crisis—Barack Obama will soon be drawing on the well of executive power every bit as deeply as his predecessors have.
Power is a strange force, for some it is welded well, for others it consumes and surfaces the worst attributes common to man. When used correctly it has the ability to accomplish wonderful deeds, it is the responsibility of the powers that be to guard it, and the responsibility of the people under its authority to hold the leader accountable. This latter attribute is an inheritance of Americans, present from the very formation of our country, to our outcries for justice in situations such as the Watergate Scandal, the extramarital affairs of presidents John F. Kennedy and George Clinton, to current issues such as the Affordable Care Act that some Americans feel overstep personal freedoms, that
Common public thought today views Congress (at least those in the same party as the President) as subordinate to the executive branch. Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher once wrote, “In an effort to promote programs of the national party, the president’s party leaders typically assume the role of administration lieutenants in Congress” (Thurber165). The policy agenda of the president, thus, becomes the task of Congress to execute for him. As evidence of this phenomenon in the American public sphere, a reference may be made to the media firestorm that followed Harry Reid when he commented, “I don’t work for the president” (Thurber 165). The public saw this comment as a jab at the leadership of the president as opposed to the factual statement
When thinking about a country, such as the United States, what do you think of? What is the first thing that pops into your mind? For most, it has something to do with the president, whether the president is leading the country in the right direction, or leading the country down to even more devastation and further chaos, that comes from the hardships of today’s society. As a citizen of the United States, I have witnessed how having a “good” or “bad” presidential candidate can influence the country and change it, for the better, or in some cases, the worst. Yes, I, as well as many other citizens in this country believe that having a strong, trusted president, benefits the citizens and ultimately has a great impact on us. Clinton Rossiter in The