I have decided to discuss Morris K. Udall’s speech “The Future of the American Presidency,” given on October 11, 1973. I found this speech particularly interesting due to it’s comparable aspect to today’s government. Udall focuses on the problem with the American presidency and the country’s loss of trust in the government at that point in time.
Udall gave this speech to Clemson University forty-four years ago, however I almost felt as if this speech was written for today’s time. This speech was given shortly after the Watergate scandal while Richard Nixon was still president. It is clear to say that at this point, trust in elected officials was low. The first point brought up is that many Americans have stopped believing in their government
…show more content…
However, in more recent times, presidents have become more dominant and powerful. It is certainly more common to hear: “The President of the United States – the most powerful man in the world,” than it would be to hear: “The Speaker of the House of Representatives – the most powerful man in the world.” Udall’s speech demonstrates the idea that if a restored sense of humility is brought back to the presidency, respect and unity between the president and US citizens will follow …show more content…
Policy is the most effective way to bring about positive environmental change. However, that becomes difficult when elected politicians neglect to listen to the opinions and concerns of the people they are representing. Udall states that it is the job of a politician to find the majority, build that majority, and lead those people forward together even if that means adapting and changing their own policies to do so. It is impractical to think that there is one perfect person to represent the majority to a T. Therefore, as a representative of the people, it is crucial for a politician to listen to who they are actually representing. I aspire to have a career in researching environmental issues and educating the public on these issues, which I see as being another spark in the change of political
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.
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.
Back in 1980, Republican president nominee Ronald Reagan pledged throughout his campaign that it was his goal to “restore the great, confident roar of American progress, growth and optimism”. Restoration, reinvigoration, and reclamation of values believed to be lost by the presidential treachery he was succeeding. Fast forward to 2008, Democratic president nominee Barack Obama did not see a need for restoration, he saw a need for new waves with his slogan “change we can believe in” after the economic destruction by W. Bush. Being such dramatic foils, the two men represent different eras of American politics. The unprecedented election of Obama severed Reagan’s seemingly everlasting legacy, signaling real changes coming to the presidency. The “Reagan Revolution” is remembered as an era of conservatism and economic peace, while Obama’s terms are viewed with mixed emotions. Obama’s impact can definitely be argued, as political information was more readily accessible in his presidency than any other in history; thanks to new technology and social communications, but since time has passed, so can Reagan’s. The use of their presidential powers is what a president is remembered for. Assessing the ranges in their backgrounds, motivations, policy creation and execution, and overall achievements, one can determine
When president Barack Obama first walked on the biggest stage in America eight years ago a lot of Americans did not trust his words of wisdom to carry, we the people to a better United States. On January 10, 2017 President Barack Obama walked back on that same big stage now known and loved by so many to give his last and final speech, his Farewell speech. All of the non believers were certainly awoken to the actions that were taken by president Barack Obama to achieve most of what he truly dedicated his life and career to. Obama worked hard to gain the love, respect and dedication by so many loyal americans today. It definitely was not an easy task to achieve, many trials and many errors. In this analysis I will state weather or not Obama’s
Because of the controversial issues surrounding President G.W. Bush before and during the time of his reelection, the acceptance speech that he delivered is an important piece of literature to study. This diplomatic speech is a piece of rhetorical contribution because the motives and meanings behind any President’s speech is significant to us as citizens of the United States of America. It further warrants our attention because if the audience is able to comprehend the inner meanings and motives behind a presidential speech, then they will eventually be able to differentiate the actual stances and platforms of future presidential candidates and nominees.
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.
Political leaders of the United States were, at one time, thought of as crucial members of our society. Ideally, their main goal was to represent and satisfy the needs of the American people. Unfortunately, over the last fifty years, our trust in our administrative representatives has drastically declined. Beginning with the great conspiracy theory that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 was actually planned by political leaders, America had, for the first time in history, begun to question its faith in its very own government. Consequently, the American people became extremely hesitant when it came to electing officials into office. Despite his loss to JFK in the 1960 presidential election, in 1968, Richard M. Nixon was elected as the thirty-seventh president of the United States. He was praised by many for his comeback after previously losing an election and seemed to be an admirable man. While in office, Nixon made many achievements and followed through with all of his promises made during his campaign. For the first time in what seemed like forever, the American people had finally elected a leader who seemed unquestionably trustworthy – or so they thought. Unfortunately, shortly after Nixon was elected to his second term of presidency in 1972, the Watergate Scandal changed America forever by creating a sense of mistrust toward the government for the American people because of The Nixon Administration’s actions.
I will start with explaining Neustadt’s arguments about presidential power in his book. Then further my answer to the extent in which compare other political scholars, Skowronek, Howell and Edwards in response to Neustadt’s points of view about American presidency.
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.
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 changes that formed the modern presidency shaped a presidency that uses power aggressively and significantly. The modern presidency
President James “Jimmy” Carter’s inauguration speech is full of contrasts. He speaks of the United States being a “purely idealistic nation,” but he also recognizes the need for strength. He states we “cannot dwell upon remembered glory,” while at the same time saying he has “no new dream to set forth today, but rather urge a fresh faith in the old dream.” President Carter came to the presidency during a period of healing for the nation. He would lead a nation in transition, but struggle to give strong leadership.
“Change is the end result of all true learning”. This quote from author and motivational speaker Leo Buscaglia, supports the idea that change can only come from those with education. With statistics showing that 80% of Americans are heavily influenced by outdated myths or just plain false facts, according to Environmental Literacy in America, 2005, change cannot and will not come any time soon. It is because of this that the only way to bring about beneficial environmental change is by educating the U.S public more on environmental conservation, in order to encourage their political leaders to create and support laws that focus on protecting nature.