The institutional approach to studying the presidency focuses on the presidency as an institution. It examines the president’s roles and responsibilities, with an emphasis on the structures and process of the presidency. This approach is helpful for evaluating what presidents do in a systematic way; however, institutional studies of the presidency often emphasize the role of institutions and processes at the expense of individual characteristics such as ideology, power, and personality. Institutional studies are typically case studies or involve quantitative analysis methods. More recently, presidential research has begun to focus on how the presidency is institutionalized. Prior to Ragsdale and Theis’ (1997) work, studies on the presidency mainly focused on how presidents differ in personality, leadership and decision making, but generally failed to consider the possibility that the office may create systematic similarities across presidents. Ragsdale and Theis (1997) used OLS regression to determine which factors affected the institutionalization of the presidency. They found that national government activity, measure by social welfare and defense expenditures, has the greatest impact on institutionalization. The effect of congressional activity is more limited, and the differences among individual presidents have little effect on levels of institutionalization (Ragsdale and Theis 1997). Moe (2009) also advocates for an institutional approach to the study of the presidency that omits personal factors and focuses on simple and parsimonious methodology. Moe argues against Neustadt’s approach, in which presidential success is based almost entirely on personal characteristics, and claims that studies on presidential behavior often ... ... middle of paper ... ...sures to create individual personality portraits for each president and conduct a case study of Reagan. In conclusion, there are different methods and approaches for studying the presidency. All of these approaches contribute in some way to the study of the presidency and increase our understanding of the president, his behavior, his power, and the institution of the presidency itself. However, I believe that future presidential research within political science should focus on being more systematic and scientific. Although historical studies and case studies are helpful for understanding specific presidents, they are not necessarily helpful for understanding the institution of the presidency in general. I think future research should focus on an institutional approach that also considers personal characteristics representing important aspects of presidential 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.
He thinks that regardless of the existence of other influential performers from other branches of the government, the president can act based on many other rights he possesses, such as executive orders and national security directives. These tools will allow him to bypass the traditional legislative process. Despite that both authors define power as president’s prime influence, Howell however argues that president has more capacity in which he can partially decide the outcome of a given situation if not whole. Howell steps further and insists more on the president’s capability despite the fact that Neustadt defines power as individual power. Howell envisions that the President must influence the “content of public policy”, in contrast, Neustadt’s argument is based on the exercise of the “Effective” impact by President. Howell, on the other hand, considers that the President is way more powerful on his own than Neustadt thinks. Howell thinks that executive orders, for example, open the path to the President to make important decisions without trying to persuade Congress or the other branches of the government to gain their support. Howell uses President Truman’s decision about federal employees. Howell’s view of unilateral presidential action perfectly fits moments when of crisis when the President, as the Commander in Chief cannot afford the long process of the congressional decision making. As he writes “a propensity of presidents, especially during times of crisis, to unilaterally impose their will on the American public.”
Back in 1980, Republican president nominee Ronald Reagan pledged throughout his campaign that it was his goal to “restore the great, confident roar of American progress, growth and optimism”. Restoration, reinvigoration, and reclamation of values believed to be lost by the presidential treachery he was succeeding. Fast forward to 2008, Democratic president nominee Barack Obama did not see a need for restoration, he saw a need for new waves with his slogan “change we can believe in” after the economic destruction by W. Bush. Being such dramatic foils, the two men represent different eras of American politics. The unprecedented election of Obama severed Reagan’s seemingly everlasting legacy, signaling real changes coming to the presidency. The “Reagan Revolution” is remembered as an era of conservatism and economic peace, while Obama’s terms are viewed with mixed emotions. Obama’s impact can definitely be argued, as political information was more readily accessible in his presidency than any other in history; thanks to new technology and social communications, but since time has passed, so can Reagan’s. The use of their presidential powers is what a president is remembered for. Assessing the ranges in their backgrounds, motivations, policy creation and execution, and overall achievements, one can determine
The “Presidents Club” is not written in an orderly way. The reason why the “Presidents Club” is written this w is because the authors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy only write about recent presidencies that they have witnessed throughout their lifetimes. By witnessing these presidencies the authors have watched the presidents from Truman to Obama make lifetime relationships. Life relationships take decades to form. To write this book, memoirs and presidential correspondences were used rather more than actual interviews.
An Imperial Presidency Writers of the constitution intended for congress to be the most powerful branch of government. They invested in the president: the powers of the monarch, but subjected him to the democratic principles of accountability which was ensured by a complex system of parliamentary and judicial checks and balances. For over a century the US got along fine with a relatively weak president whose major role was simply to carry out the laws and policies made by congress, however, there has been erosion in this system. Presidential power only started to grow after the 19th century when the US set out on its path to empire.
In recent years, President Obama and the way he handles things has become a very controversial topic. In the article “Obama’s ‘Where’s Waldo?’ Presidency” Ruth Marcus describes that controversy, in which she gives her opinion of President Obama. Marcus begins by discussing how in Barack Obama’s campaign he talked about “change we can believe in”, but she later tells the reader that he has “been missing in action” (Marcus, Paragraph 1). Throughout the article, she tells of numerous issues that Obama seemed to be missing on, and presents the reader with the question, where is President Obama?
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.
The public’s perception of him was of great importance to Jimmy Carter when he ran for president, and improving that perception was certainly the goal when he and Mrs. Carter walked down Pennsylvania Avenue in his inaugural parade, clearly intending to show they were just normal people. It was also clearly a consideration when upon inauguration he ordered his staff size cut, the White House budget trimmed, and overall decreasing the pomp and majesty associated with the office. However, despite all his concerns about perception and his efforts to cultivate good first impressions with the American people, Carter was “unable to escape the view that he is inept and indecisive…costing him support both at home and overseas” (Beckman). An example of Carter’s indecisiveness can be seen in his eventual decision to delay...
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.
Conservatism is an ideology consisted of ideas and beliefs that value social order and tradition. The question of whether or not conservatism is a coherent ideology is a highly debated topic. Conservatism can be seen as a disbelief to its critiques against other political ideologies such as liberalism. (Ruth, 2017) However, I believe the ideas of conservatism do make up a coherent ideology. Throughout this essay I will explain the reasons why I believe the ideas of conservatism make a legitimate ideology. The Oxford Dictionary defines an ideology as “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” Meaning that in order for a viewpoint to be deemed an ideology it must contain a
The Obama’s are high in social, collective, emotional, structural and task cohesion. The main reason why they are high in all these types of cohesion is because they are a small, close group bonded by family relationships. This helps them when it comes to identifying as an influential group. They are high in social cohesion because within their group they have attraction between each member as most families do. Also due to their elite social status as the presidential family society as a whole is attracted to them and everything they do. The Obama’s are high in collective cohesion as each member of the group individually feels a sense of belonging and serves a purpose to the group. The family always identifies as a family and for the past decade has maintained this identity as the presidential family. The Obama’s are also high in emotional cohesion as they represent positive moral values and behave as a united front. The family has always represented strong family values and each member of the family behaves in a way that reflects these values at all times. The Obama’s are high in structural cohesion as they are a closed group consisting of only family members, therefore the group structure cannot be changed. The Obama’s are high in task cohesion as they share a commitment to the same goal. We believe the Obama’s main goal is to be a positive representation of an American family. The family has been committed to this goal for eight years and has never wavered. The family has never surrounded themselves in negative controversy regarding their family and how they behave as a family unit. Another reason why we chose the Obama’s as the best group of the last decade is because they are high in collective efficacy. The Obama’s prove to be high in collective efficacy by using their title and resources to respond to the American