Paradox Of The American Presidency By Meena Bose

George Washington was a courageous, caring person who ended up becoming the first President of the United States. The author of “How to Be Presidential”, Edward G Lengel, truly believed Washington was the man for the job, and shows his claims by explaining his life in chronological order. By doing so, he makes people believe Washington deserved to be the first President because of his courageous life. Lengel carefully put certain timelines in the story to explain Washington’s life into chronological order. This is first directly showed in paragraph four where Lengel writes, “...which he experienced at Fort Necessity and the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania in 1754-55,...”.

The highly controversial book by Michael Wolff highlights the current Trump administrations processes, from the beginning of his campaign, through the transitory period, and well into the first year of Mr. Trump's presidency. The book is based on both on and off the record interviews with the staff, political advisors, and other friends of those in the White House conducted by the author in a very “fly on the wall” setting where he was allowed to stay in the White House simply because nobody was telling Mr. Wolff to leave. Using these interviews, the author paints a picture of how the President is constantly manipulated by those around him, how he is extremely unprepared for his position, and how he is regarded by those around him. The nature

Kamarck (2016) tackles directly the question as to how Presidents can utilize the massive bureaucracy they are tasks to lead. Unfortunately, in her view, the answer seems to be not very well. Kamarck contends that one recurring type of Presidential failure, “crash and burn spectaculars” can be attributed to Presidents’ inability to effectively manage the vast resources of the executive branch. Pointing to failures by Presidents Carter, Bush Jr., and Obama, Kamarck identifies three common reasons for these Presidential failures: failure of information to get to the President in order to prompt effective decision making, failure of Presidents to see early warning signs of disasters, and failure to understand the capacity of the government

United States presidents are expected to be great: great people, great leaders, and great presidents. But is it really possible for every single president to be great? Would that not just turn what was once considered greatness into mediocrity? Turn greatness into something no more or less than the expected performance of each president, something usual and expected and entirely unremarkable?

William Novak presents an argument on how the history of American government has been told upside-down for many years now. Novak depicts a mighty American state, capable of a great deal and responsible for some of the most important narratives in American history. However, there were many people, of whom had great interest in the founding fathers, were irritated by Novak’s argument. The main group of people being referred to here were people from the Tea Party political movement.

When faced with difficult situations, Presidents throughout history have made questionable decisions over what is best for the American people. Whether faced with foreign or internal threats, the pressures of the executive office can lead to controversial choices. Actions that are initially viewed as necessary and justifiable, even applauded for their purpose, can become — in hindsight — unfair, unwise, and even unconstitutional. Often times, these lapses in proper judgement of what is lawful and necessary arise from trying times of high emotion, when the President believes that they are operating for the safety and preservation of the American people at the time of the conflict. Two such Presidents, elected during times of intense adversity

With its years of existence, The United States had seen 31 Presidents who governed its citizens and created amendments and laws; however, in 1933, a man with different views and a different character than his predecessors, gave his citizens, who at one point had no hopes for the future, assurance of a better life. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man born in Hyde Park destined to lead America through financial and foreign crises. Raised to the Presidency from just a position as a politician of the New York State Legislature, Roosevelt pledged to serve the citizens of the United States. His thirst for a better life created him into a workaholic, working all the way until bedtime (Smith 234). Franklin D. Roosevelt has a specific resonance

Brief summary of the reading Richard E. Neustadt in his book, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, studies executive power and its primary characteristics of success. Public expect that the presidents do more than what law and constitution allow them to do. As Neustadt argues, “Presidential power is the power to persuade." (Page 11) Persuasion and bargaining are the two main factors that he believes presidents should use to influence their agendas and strategies. Bargaining to encourage other branches of government mostly Congress and the executive branch which he is in control of such as secretaries, heads of government agencies, and individual bureaucrats is necessary.

In the Rhetorical Presidency, Tulis argues the existence of two constitutional presidencies; an uppercase “Constitutional” presidency and a lowercase “constitutional” presidency. The “Constitutional” presidency refers to the presidency as created by the men who wrote the Constitution, in which the president draws his authority from the Constitution and does not lead public opinion. In contrast, the “constitutional” presidency refers to the president drawing his authority from the Constitution and his ability to lead public opinion. Thereby, the two constitutional presidencies ultimately conflict with each other. The presidency has drastically evolved over the decades to become the “constitutional” presidency, whereby an activist president

Congress and the President share a set of goals that are extremely similar. Both seek to produce public policy and maintain their electoral constituencies, so they often behave in anticipation of what they expect the other to do. One can characterize their strategies as a game-theoretic model in which Congress and the President take turns exercising partial agenda control and typically arrive at policy that is acceptable to both sides. The President has a powerful advantage in this model because his or her sources of power impart an increased ability to persuade others through: vantage points in government, veto bargaining, and the power to set the agenda. Just as they do in the real world, these tools allow the simulated President to influence

Lyndon B. Johnson was the most consequential president after Franklin D. Roosevelt because of his pluralistic domestic policies and his involvement in the Vietnam War, which both “marked the historical height of ‘presidential government’” (Milkis & Nelson 2016, 363). Because Johnson has previously been the Vice President, a United States Representative, a United States Senator, and even the Senate Majority Leader, he was able to use personal persuasion on both houses of Congress to endorse his bills and join his cause. After Johnson succeeded to the presidency, he used the country’s grief to fuel his moral crusade to be “the greatest [president] of them all, the whole bunch of them” (Milkis & Nelson 2016, 360). Johnson’s new “Great Society”

Presidential Disasters Intelligence, honesty, and character are all qualities Americans look for in a president. Citizens want someone with power; someone who will make the nation better. These are things citizens have hoped for as early as the 1700s, when the nation elected the first president. Since then, citizens have placed many expectations on the president. When trouble comes or a disaster hits the nation, we as citizens typically rely on the president to provide aid and to support us during those times.

Power is best understood as pursuing freely chosen ends, towards which our actions are oriented and are then commanding the necessary means towards the pursuit of those ends. Power, therefore, is an enabling capacity. The more power one has, the wider is their range of choices that they may realistically pursue (Bauman & May 2001). Bauman & May notes, “To have power, among other things, means to be able to decide what is not important and what should not matter or concern” (120). This definition of power by Zygmunt Bauman and Tim May was chosen because it best relates to the circumstances in The Hunger Games, in which President Coriolanus Snow possesses power over the Capitol and other districts.

“The president 's power is felt all over the world.” No nation is so remote from the U.S. that they can avoid the repercussions of American diplomacy. The president can abuse their powers and it will affect the U.S as well as other countries that associate with us. “The formal powers as listed in the Constitution say little about a modern president 's real power.” Modern presidents have way more power than was is listed in the constitution, they do not have to follow the guidelines completely like past presidents would have had to.

To choose one example, one can examine the relationship between Hoover and Truman. While they belonged to different political parties, both were Protestant Christians - Truman Baptist and Hoover Quaker. Their religious upbringings seemingly contributed to their both being Wilsonian idealists; Wilsonianism is an ideology advocated by former president Woodrow Wilson that is centered on an active pursual of peace via the rise of democracy. Thus, due to this parallel, it is easy to see why they united to stop a famine in Europe - it was to prevent the spread of communism. The importance of political socialization in presidential relationships is further underscored by the relationship between Carter and Clinton.