In the United States political history, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D Eisenhower are two of the most indelible and influential presidents and were living legends in their time. Despite radical differences in both leadership style and approach, each was greatly applauded and forged an enduring premonition upon the psyche of American citizens and the sociopolitical institutions. There are striking contrasts attached to the two presidents. Kennedy as the liberal visionary and herald of a new hopeful frontier and a fortified assurance for the future; Eisenhower as a staunch bulwark of rigid traditional, conventional American values. This paper will examine areas of leadership styles and more particularly regarding foreign and defense policy structures of both presidents. Leadership Styles Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were affected to various levels in governance issues by the previous administrations of Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. However, Kennedy’s leadership style was closely attached to FDR than to Eisenhower. While there were various corresponding viewpoints, the discrete and idiosyncratic values and leadership styles of the two presidents could not be so much dissimilar. Their primary forms of leadership can be classified into formal and informal styles while their foreign policy based on the foundation of either symmetric or asymmetric approach. Essentially each and every nation’s president has a purpose behind his presidency, marked by unalterable commitment. Eisenhower’s formal style differed remarkably with Kennedy’s informal-leaning style of administration characterized by intense cabinet interaction. Eisenhower, through his military orientation, was more attached to a formalized, hierarchical style of i... ... middle of paper ... ...a post- WWII, while Kennedy deeply concentrated on social condition and civil rights issues. Perhaps, in the US politics, no other comparative administrations have contrasted so sharply, a temporal division between the past and the future. References Moss, G. D. (2010). Vietnam: An American Ordeal (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Retrieved from http://devry.vitalsource.com/books/9781256086260 www.whitehouse.gov/presidents. Bose, M.. (1998). Shaping and Signaling Presidential policy; the National Security Decision Making of Eisenhower and Kennedy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press Greenstein, F.I, (2005). Presidents, their Styles and their Leadership. Working Papers, Center for Public Leadership: Princeton University. Welch, J.P, (1996). Eisenhower and Kennedy: Worlds Apart. Final Paper Research. The Presidency and the Executive.
Miller Center. (2009, May). American President: A reference resource. Retrieved November 2, 2011, from University of Virgina: http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/print
Beginning with a comparative analysis of the manner in which Neustadt and Skowronek conceptualize of the Presidency itself, the essay notes that Neustadt’s theory operates at the micro level while Skowronek’s operates at the macro level. Arguing that this difference is salient in creating a division of labor between the two, the essay moves forward to examine each theory’s ability to expatiate upon differences between Presidents by applying them to both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Noting Neustadt’s superiority vis-à-vis Johnson and Skowronek’s greater potency as it pertains to Nixon, and how Reagan best shows the strengths and weaknesses of both authors, this essay proposes that this discussion lends further support to the notion that each theory is best suited to examining different facets of the Presidency.
E-History (2012, N.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://ehistory.osu.edu/vietnam/essays/battlecommand/index.cfm.
Eisenhower’s dynamic conservatism now known as Modern Republicanism labeled him as a nonpartisan leader, who was fiscally conservative in reducing federal spending and socially moderate in maintaining existing social and economic legislation of the New Deal. With the policy shift of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, foreign policy in dealing with Communism went from containing it, to rolling it back. The Strategic Air Command was established as a fleet of super bombers that were equipped with nukes that would allow for massive retaliation in the place of a large standing army or navy, and the threat of massive retaliation was used to get the Soviets to surrender, and issued the Mutual Assured Destruction, where both sides knew that neither nation would declare nuclear war because it would result in total annihilation ...
1. In what ways were President Kennedy 's foreign policy decisions shaped by Cold War ideology?
Fussell, Paul. "Vietnam." The Bloody Game: An Anthology of Modern War. Ed. Paul Fussell. London: Scribners, 1991. 651-6.
In the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries who are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually lead to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role in these policies was based on his military-type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective.
Both John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were elected to Congress in 46, a year in which the New Deal took a serious beating as the Republicans regained control of Congress on the slogan Had Enough? Nixon of course, had campaigned against incumbent Jerry Voorhis on an anti-New Deal platform, but it's often forgotten that when JFK first ran for the House in 1946, he differentiated himself from his Democratic primary opposition by describing himself as a fighting conservative. In private, Kennedy's antipathy to the traditional FDR New Deal was even more extensive. When Kennedy and Nixon were sworn in on the same day, both were already outspoken on the subject of the emerging Cold War. While running for office in 1946, Kennedy proudly told a radio audience of how he had lashed out against a left-wing group of Young Democrats for being naive on the subject of the Soviet Union, and how he had also attacked the emerging radical faction headed by Henry Wallace. Thus, when Kennedy entered the House, he was anything but progressive in his views of either domestic or foreign policy. It didn't take long for these two to form a friendship. Both were Navy men who had served in the South Pacific, and both saw themselves as occupying the vital center of their parties. Just as JFK lashed out against the New Deal and the radical wing of the Democratic party, so too did Richard Nixon distance himself from the right-wing of the Republican party. Nixon's support of Harry Truman's creation of NATO and the aid packages to Greece and Turkey meant rejecting the old guard isolationist bent of the conservative wing that had been embodied in Mr. Republican Senator Robert Taft. Indeed, when it came time for Nixon to back a nominee in 1948, his support went to the more centrist Thomas E. Dewey, and not to the conservative Taft. Kennedy decided to go into politics mainly because of the influence of his father. Joe Kennedy, Jr. had been killed in the European arena of World War II and so the political ambitions of the family got placed on the shoulders of John. Nixon, however, got involved in politics by chance. While celebrating the end of the war in New York, he received a telegram from an old family friend indicating that they needed someone to run against the Democrat Jerry Voorhis.
The Kennedy Administration consists of a series of “what if” moments. What if moments such as what if Kennedy sent troops during the Bay of Pigs or what if Kennedy listened to his advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis serve as some examples. Coupled with this “what if” perception, the more time passes since the incidents, the more complex the possibilities become. History is based on contingencies, a random catalyst, and the effects of prior actions. Every action is based on, the often random, event before it, and said action goes on to influence events later on in the historical timeline.
The Paradox of Professionalism: Eisenhower, Ridgway, and the Challenge to Civilian Control, 1953-1955, by A.J. Bacevich
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States of America was the youngest man to ever win the Presidential election at the age of 43. He was a well liked president, known for his youthfulness, high spirits and the commitments he made to the Unites States (O’Brien). During his inaugural speech, he stated that the U.S. would pledge “to convert our good words into good deeds” by forming alliances with the countries that border us. In order to prosper as a nation (“The Avalon”). President Kennedy had several great plans for this country and knew they “will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin” (“The Avalon”). Unfortunately, these plans were not carried out to their full extent because while riding in an open parade car in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, Kennedy was shot and killed. Kennedy did suffer hard times as far as international affairs go, but he is known for The Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and the Alliance for Progress (“John”).
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II, was close to not achieving commander status. If this had happened, a different person would have taken control over Operations Torch, Avalanche, and Overlord. Eisenhower, in fact, was the key component in the victory for the Allies. Had he not been assigned by George Marshall to a planning officer in Washington D.C., President Harry Truman might not have saw Eisenhower’s potential. Eisenhower’s past 30 years of military experience, his strong mental and social stature, and his ideas and tactics were all key factors for his triumphant victory in World War II.
Richard Neustadt today is a professor of politics and has written many books on subjects pertaining to government and the inter workings of governments. He has many years of personal experience working with the government along with the knowledge of what makes a president powerful. He has worked under President Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. His credibility of politics has enhanced his respect in the field of politics. His works are studied in many Universities and he is considered well versed in his opinions of many different presidents. It is true that he seems to use Truman and Eisenhower as the main examples in this book and does show the reader the mistakes he believes were made along the way in achieving power.
Perhaps the most critical moment that had occurred to the United States and the world of the last century is the Cuban Missile Crisis. The significance of this event was that it had brought the world to the closest it could ever be to a nuclear war. Millions of lives, cultures and infrastructure would have been lost if it was not splendidly dealt with. Yet, a man was able to prevent this devastation, and he was none other than President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) of the United States. How was he significant to the event? This research paper will discuss it with the points that are based on JFK’s characteristics. Hence, to provide an overview of this paper; the outbreak of nuclear warfare was prevented in the Cuban Missile Crisis specifically by John F. Kennedy’s many distinguished characteristics.
Linden, R. M. (2006, November/December). Dwight Eisenhower: Portrait of a Collaborative Leader. Virginia Review, 6. Retrieved December 3, 2013