In my comparison and analysis of all members of former President Bush’s cabinet and President Obama’s cabinet I found a difference in the design of their respective cabinets and Mills’ predictions and understanding for the elite in The Power Elite. Differences arose in the cabinets themselves, but many arose between the cabinets and Mills’ predictions. After World War II, “Mills famously argued, a ‘triangle of power’ emerged in the United States” (Whitfield). His triangle included leadership from the executive, corporate, and military realms of America. In my study, I included education and law because of the number of current political elites who started their rise to power in those two professions. Mills wrote that men of law, along with bankers, “perform the functions of the ‘go-between’” (289). Through …show more content…
For both cabinets, the most used starting occupation matched where both presidents started, business and law respectively. In both cabinets, very few military leaders and lifelong politicians were nominated which is not consistent with Mills’ theory about the power elite structure. Bush’s cabinet was filled with many businessmen. Out of college, Bush attempted to acquire a small position in the Texas government, but upon losing the vote, he spent time in the oil industry. Bush owned a large oil company based out of Texas. President Bush’s background in business correlates with his nomination of so many more business-minded elites than any other group. In Bush’s campaign for reelection, in 2004, “he pledged ‘to modernize Social Security, reform the immigration system, and overhaul the tax code, while continuing No Child Left Behind, and the faith based initiative, implementing Medicare reform, and above all, fighting the war on terror’” (Miller Center).
During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address. In his address, Roosevelt asserted that corporate spending in federal elections had the potential to engender corruption—or the appear...
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.
The purpose of an “inaugural address” is to inform the people of his or her intentions as a leader. Two of the most prominent inaugural addresses throughout history are Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s and Barack Obama’s. Franklin Roosevelt’s inaugural address stands the test of time because it gave the American people hope that they may overcome the terrible Great Depression. Similarly, Barack Obama’s address is well known because it inspired millions that we will be lifted out of economic crisis, but it was also remembered as the first inaugural address from an African American president. The inauguration speeches of Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama use the rhetorical devices parallelism, allusions, and emotive language to convey their messages
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.
As soon as Andrew Jackson came into office, he fired 10% of the government’s employees, mainly from the post office, and placed his own supporters into the vacated posts. This may not have been a problem if he replaced these workers with people who were qualified, but the vast majority of Andrew Jackson’s appointments were incompetent. Thus, the government became bloated and less efficient. Andrew Jackson development of a special system to reward his cronies with government jobs without formal training, demonstrates that Andrew Jackson should be remembered as
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.
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.”
By adding social issues to the conservative agenda, the New Right weakened the establishment’s movement, contradicting and discrediting its fundamental principles. The new social agenda contradicted Old Right’s belief in limited government and individual rights. Today, the New Right continues to grow and the Christian Right continues to gain political power. Republican candidates are considered politically dead unless they secure the support of the Christian Coalition. Before the New Right comes to embody “conservativism” within American political discourse, Old Right conservatives must discard the dissenter’s social initiatives and reclaim the establishment’s conservative agenda: remove the New Right’s social agenda, return to establishment’s conservative ideals, and develop policies based on limited government, free market, and individual liberty.
In the novel, The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and more Prosperous America, written by a New York Times bestselling Arthur, Arthur Brooks, he expresses how conservatives have been a movement of the head instead of the heart. Arthur Brooks is the 11thpresident of the American Enterprise Institute which is a nonpartisan public policy research institute and became president when Barack Obama was elected president (Brooks 1). In the American Enterprise Institute, Brooks works with scholars, policymakers, and elected officials to ensure free enterprise to all American’s (Brooks 2). At the age of nineteen, Brooks left college to travel the world and play French horn; he finally ended up
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.
The Journal of the International Institute. 2000. The. The Regents of the University of Michigan. 07 March 05 Sidey, Hugh. The “The Presidency.”
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.
Lowi, Theodore J. (1985). The personal President: Power invested promise unfulfilled. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
Kate Malleson remarks that even the current recruitment pool which is dominated by middle aged successful barristers does seem to evoke John Griffith's theory of judicial conservatism. However, the apparently conservative composition of the judiciary does not necessarily mean that it gives preference to traditional views. In contrast to the US Supreme Court, there is little concern whether a UK judge’s social and political views a...