Every citizen in the United States is a principal to one of the most powerful agents in the entire world, the president. And in order to avoid many principal-agent dilemmas, it must be necessary for the people to maintain control of their agent more than once every four years at the ballot box. This control takes the form of public opinion on a daily basis. How exactly does public opinion shape the expansive powers for the President of the United States? Is it more beneficial to the president for achieve policy goals or is it more necessary to constrain the already growing power of the presidency? Over time and through many technological advancements such as radio or internet, the president has become more available to the people and therefore the relationship between the two has become stronger. In numerous situations, this relationship has become a “two-sided blade” for power. Public opinion is inarguably the strongest check and balance of the presidential position and prevents the creation of grossly unpopular policies; however, there are certain situations where public opinion can be manipulated to gain greater informal power.
The close relationship between the people and the president began with Andrew Jackson and his belief that the president was the only representation for the common citizen against the corrupt in power (Kollman 193). However, it was Woodrow Wilson who initiated a populist presidency (Kollman 197). By emphasizing direct contact between the nation’s leader and the people, Wilson unknowingly established a mutualistic relationship in which both parties benefit. Americans were finally able to see and hear exactly what their president was like and decide whether or not they approved, while Wilson was able to u...
... middle of paper ...
...ssary for progress and public opinion can hinder this progress, it is crucial for the public to be able to limit this progress of authority in order to prevent the creation of extremely unpopular policies. With each new president, a precedence is established for how to handle the public’s opinion. Some such as Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton have chosen to abide by it to maintain the status quo, while others such as Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt have used public opinion to gain informal power over other branches of government to achieve their own political goals. Public opinion is by far one of the most critical and important aspects of politics today and yet it can be seen so casually in local newspapers, internet surveys, and even the local gossip on a daily basis. Not everyone realizes that their response to these might one day affect the nation’s future.
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.
Andrew Jackson, revered as the first common man to become President, symbolized the average citizen having the opportunity to climb the ranks within America 's democratic system. However, the profits of Jackson 's administration succeed in concealing his immoral procedures and behavior. Jackson 's methods worked accordingly to the reasoning of the father of political science, Machiavelli, who said, “The end justifies the means”. He achiev...
Presidents create the leadership position that has a say in all of the decisions for a country. In this era, many judgments of situations needed to be decided, and it made it blatantly obvious as to who made the wrong or right decisions. In the political cartoon published by Washington Post in 1907, Roosevelt wanted to convey that it was necessary to determine what trusts were good or bad. Trusts were made to shut down businesses and he felt he had the power to run these options and opinions. After some violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Teddy really took a step forward in proving his trust-busting techniques. In a speech that Roosevelt made in February of 1912, he expressed his belief on the importance of the people participating in direct election of Senators through his speech. This importance that he felt was necessary eventually led on to the 17th Amendment, which was passed the year after. In Herbert Croly’s New Republic, Wilson received quite a bit of loathing from Croly as he expressed his opinions. The supporters of Wilson definitely disagreed with an article like this, and it was unacceptable to some. Whether liked or disliked, the presidents during this period made an impact on our nation, and the people wanted to be heard for the rights they wanted.
Americans loved Republican Senator Warren G. Harding when he ran for president. He looked like a president, sounded like a president, and spoke vaguely on issues, so he would not aggravate any sides. But most notably, he reminded people that "'America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy'" (Pietrusza 3) and America agreed. Harding conducted a low-risk campaign that was based on the image of being the "president next door". He focused on an image consistent with America's desire for peace and tranquility. He invited voters to his front porch and used his newspaper skills (he was a former newspaper editor) to tame the press, who gave him good press (Pietrusza 225). Even his successor as president, Calvin Coolidge, used the same tactics of going on as business as usual and touring for...
...essives, they still recognized the utility of local government. In that sense, the Wilsonian system was the most integrated. The political parties were broad organizations, spanning from local to national politics and hopefully fostering some sort of interconnectivity. Wilson acknowledged the danger and rigidity of a two-party system, but also realized that parties would balance a government's tendency to accumulate excessive amounts of power. The individual was able to engage himself in politics, but the functionality of the Federal Government was never impeded upon. Somehow, Wilson had nearly resolved the differences that had been plaguing American politics for the preceding century. He was the first president to recognize that he possessed two responsibilities as a party leader and policy-maker and that is why his system was so admirable, enduring and emulated.
Since the presidential goal is to lead the public opinion, the media’s aid is needed in order to reach out for the people and persuade them with any desired adjustme...
Democracy, a new form of government, a government for the people, was seen in different lights. As time progresses, the government becomes firmer in its regime and doctrine, yet keeps the same focus; for the people. The United States was created for the people, and by the people, and the need for the people to continue to be the main focus was crucial. However, once Jackson was elected president, the idea of people staying the main focus of government began to falter. Those who support Jackson wished for something in return, and Andrew Jackson supported the rights of the spoils system, thus giving his people the seats they thought they deserved. However, as time went on, the focus on the people slowly changed to what those in those special seats wanted. Jacksonian Democrats, who viewed themselves as the guardians of the United States Constitution under the presidency of Andrew Jackson claimed to have held the interest of the common people in high regard, altering not only our Forefathers’ electoral processes but the government as a whole. However, through their actions toward their common people, the uprooting of Native Americans, and the fatality of a national bank, they eventually created a larger mess than just a “kitchen cabinet” could withstand.
Democracy in the United States became prominent in the early to mid 19th century. Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was inaugurated in 1829 and was best known as the person who mainstreamed democracy in America. Because he came from a humble background, he was the “genuine common man.” (Foner, pg. 303) He claimed he recognized the needs of the people and spoke on behalf of the majority [farmers, laborers]. However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost.
When the framers created our government over 200 years ago, they were very weary of history repeating itself in regards to the monarchy created by the King of Great Britain. Their concerns about having a president included someone who would gain too much power using it to overthrow the state governments, continue to run for election, or become a tool of the senate. To avoid their fears they allowed congress and the legislative branch to be the first branch of government. Today however, I think Congress has gained more power than the founders ever thought it would. I believe that the president’s perception of power has decreased over time. The powers that the president had at the beginning of our country, and th e powers they have now are very similar. The difference is Americans are more educated and involved in politics than they were before. Today the President not only has to deal with Congress to get anything done, but the people as well. If Americans are unhappy they want the president to hear them, sometimes that means by being close with their congressmen, or by protesting and rioting. Nowadays protests and riots are prodcast everywhere by the media, and if the president ignores them, everyone knows about it. Another reason the presidential office is not as powerful as it once was is that
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
From before America was even founded, and throughout her history, a question of what her public policy is or should be has always been in the public eye. And thanks to our constitutional right of the freedom of speech and press, ideas of public policy and American political theory have legally been allowed to circulate and influence the opinion of American citizens. There have been multiple ways of communicating ideas throughout American history, whether that is through pamphlets, essays or speeches—the question of what our American political theory is has progressed throughout history.
In the first two decades of the twentieth century the national political scene reflected a growing American belief in the ideas of the Progressive movement. This movement was concerned with fundamental social and economic reforms and gained in popularity under two presidents. Yet Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson espoused two different approaches to progressive reform. And each one was able to prevail upon congress to pass legislation in keeping with his own version of the progressive dream. These two people, although they had different principles in mind, had one goal: to make changes to the nation for the better of the people and the country. Setting out to reach this goal, Roosevelt came to be a president of the common man while Wilson became the “better” progressive 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.
The president serves as an advocate for many political policies. We as American citizens blame the president when things do not go the way we visualized, but we fail to recognize that the president is only but a minor part of the process. The Constitution defines the relations between the national and state government. Additionally, the Electoral
Public is one of the main things that influence today’s government. The public is important, especially in things like elections and new laws. If a president candidate was for abortion, then he would lose part of the public who believe in pro-life, but would capture the vote of the people who are all for abortion. People running for office take into account what they believe in, but they also how the public will view them. Most of the time, candidates want to attract the public which means that most of their beliefs and decisions shift to what the public want to hear. Candidates try to focus on the immediate needs of the public. The Government are most likely to make decisions that the public will like. After this candidate is elected, then they can change their whole focus. Candidates just need the vote from the public. The worst fear of the Government and its possible candidates is rejection of the public. It would be very difficult to hold their position if most of the public hates them and their decisions. The Government tries to focus on what the public is most worried about. For example, in 2001, our country had a major terrorist attack. Most people fear for their safety and what the Government is going to do to ensure it. Most of the presidential candidates this last election focused on the war in Iraq and healthcare. These were issues that people are most concerned about. The public controls most of the Government and its decisi...