A presidential transition, which includes pre-election planning through a president’s first hundred days, is about building the most institutional capacity with a limited amount of institutional memory. Due to the limit of institutional memory for a new administration, mistakes are bound to be made during the transition. Such mistakes, however, if large enough can lead to a dysfunctional transition. One such mistake could be neglecting to institute a clear chain of command in the president’s White House. I think that a presidential administration can overcome a dysfunctional transition and develop its institutional capacity if a clear chain of command is established through a disciplined White House structure. This strategy is likely to be …show more content…
Clinton’s early hub-of-the-wheel structure was freeform, allowing many different voices from any position to talk to the president, making the president’s decision process long and ineffective (Hess and Pfiffner 2002, 156). Mack McLarty, Clinton’s first chief of staff, was unable to rein in Clinton and implement structure and professionalism in the White House, telling his replacement that he had never seen a chain of command in place (Graham 2017, 4; Hess and Pfiffner 2002, 156). As said by former Chief of Staff Jack Watson Jr., “one of the hardest and most important jobs his White House Chief of Staff has is to protect Mr. Clinton from his own instinct to do too much and sleep too little” (Watson 1993, 431). McLarty’s replacement, Leon Panetta, understood the importance of organization, creating a chain of command and controlling the president’s meetings. Panetta immediately put in place two daily staff meetings and knew what everyone in the White House was doing in order to work with the president and minimize contradictory information (Graham 2017, 4; Thrush, et al 2017). The regular meetings complemented the hierarchical channels of communication, fostering productive discussions about the policy agenda (Cohen 2016, 18). Leon Panetta exhibited his strength in managing the White House staff and making it clear to Clinton that by listening too long to too many voices his decision-making was inefficient and, thus,
Skowornek writes, “these presidents each set out to retrieve from a far distant, even mythic, past fundamental values that they claim had been lost in the indulgences of the received order, In this way, the order-shattering and order-affirming impulses of the presidency in politics became mutually reinforcing.” (Skowornek, 37, book). These presidents are in the best position not because they are exceptional at their job but because the time they came into office offered them the elasticity and authority to make new orders and be welcomed by the public because he is taking the country out of its troubles and challenges.
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.
What were the major impacts on American foreign policy during the H.W. Bush & Clinton Administrations? How did Bush & Clinton define the post-Cold War world for the United States?
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 Executive Branch is explained in Article II of the Constitution. It explains the president’s term of office, the procedure for electi...
When it comes to United States Presidents, everyone has an opinion of each president’s effectiveness. It takes character and talent to hold up to the stress of the White House. One aspect of a leader that measures their effectiveness is their capability to handle a crisis; another is their ability to make decisions for the betterment of whomever they lead, while still taking in all opinions. One example of an extremely effective president that successfully used those qualities was Abraham Lincoln.
Through Paul Quirk’s three presidency models that are self-reliant, minimalist, and strategic competence, we learn that there are three models that show us how the presidents use one of them to implement in the term of their presidency (POLS510 Lesson). According to Paul Quirk’s definitions about these three models, each and every president would be easily classified because of their governing style, such as being self-reliant that a president knows everything and is confident what to do and how to act, being minimalist that a president does not need to understand every and each political events and activities what’s going around homeland and world, and the president’s secretaries would take care of everything, and being strategic competence
President Obama was no different. Five weeks after the election, President Obama met with his economic and political advisors that presented him with their reports of the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions and their plan to hinder the economy from collapsing. President Obama delegated the legislative work to party members and committees because, as a former legislator, he believed that giving Congress discretion in writing the bill would contribute to its enactment (Wayne, 2013). “In general, crises, when they first occur, enhance opportunities for presidential leadership” Stephen J. Wayne stated in Rivals of Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations. “Members of Congress, much like the general public, look to the president and rally behind him” (Wayne, 2013). At first, president Obama hit the ground running after he won the election, and immediately started to figure out with his advisors on how to get the United States back on its feet again. And Congress members look up to the president just as much as American citizens do when the United States faces a crisis. Which in turn can boost the president’s and Congress’ relationship to American citizens. However, Obama’s operating style spawned criticism from both the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats companied that he did not give much support for their
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.
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.
Gregory Craig says, “No matter what the job, each administration is different from the last administration, so everybody is learning the job from the beginning and there’s enormous pressure to get it right.” (NYTimes Obama) However, the job can become more difficult based on the country’s current situation. When the Obama administration took over the country had been through a recession, and was currently involved in the War on Terror in Iraq (NYTimes Obama). This alone would be giant pressure for the White House Staff, but they also had to deal with the overhaul of the nation’s health care system (NYTimes Obama). When a country is experiencing great change or economic distress this greatly increases the workload of the White House Staff, and makes it even more
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 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.