In order to understand more completely the job of the presidency and the nature of presidential leadership in the United States, one must also understand the president’s relationship with Congress. This can be done by examining challenges that presidents face and the actions they take to address them. There are five challenges this paper will focus on: the “disappearing center” and polarization, the president’s use of unilateral executive powers and signing statements, shared constitutional powers, who is a better representative of the people, and the different “patterns of inter-branch control” between the two branches. Within these five challenges will be why they are important, and recommendations that presidents can use to overcome them. The first challenge president’s face is in regard to “the disappearing center” and the polarization between the two political parties that most often determines how successful their relationship will be with Congress. In order for the political process to work, accommodation and cooperation between the parties is a must in order to bring about change at the federal level of government. The American public wish for cross-party public policymaking in general and this is why the center is deemed to be extremely important. Without a political center there is sure to be greater partisanship and ideological polarization between those elected to Congress and the Office of the President. The outcome from this can lead to increased distrust by the public and aversion to the political process and politicians. Sarah Binder states, “The movement away from the center has been accompanied by a coarsening of politics and bitter partisanship—leaving voters increasingly disenchanted with Washington politics” ... ... middle of paper ... ...parties could get elected. Works Cited Binder, Sarah A. "The Disappearing Political Center." Understanding the Presidency. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 277-81. Print. Davidson, Roger H. "Presidential Relations with Congress." Understanding the Presidency. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 256-75. Print. Ellis, Richard J., and Marc J. Hetherington. "Resolved, the President Is a More Authentic Representative of the American People than Is Congress." Debating the Presidency: Conflicting Perspectives on the American Executive. Washington, DC: CQ, 2010. 82-99. Print. Rottinghaus, Brandon. "The Presidency and Congress." New Directions in the American Presidency. New York: Routledge, 2011. 81-97. Print. Waterman, Richard W. "The Administrative Presidency, Unilateral Power, and the Unitary Executive Theory." Understanding the Presidency. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 248-52. Print.
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 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.
Checks and Balances. Checks and balances is a system that is a part of out U.S. Constitution. This system was put in to place so that no part of government would have too much power. The three branches: judicial, legislative and executive are constantly granting and checking the other branches actions, this is to make sure no one person can gain an excessive amount of control in government. For example according to ," the legislative branch is in charge of making laws. The executive branch can veto the law, thus making it harder for the legislative branch to pass the law. The judicial branch may also say that the law is unconstitutional and thus make sure it is not a law.The legislative branch can also remove a president or judge that is not doing his/her job properly. The executive branch appoints judges and the legislative branch approves the choice of the executive branch. Again, the branches check and balance each other so that no one branch has too much power".
In the United States of America, there are a number of national issues that go unresolved and become more of a major issue subsequently. The lack of resolution in some of our nation’s most critical issues is due to the lack of a common ground between opposing political parties. Issues such as healthcare, climate change, abortion, same-sex marriage, taxes and welfare are reoccurring problems in the United States due to congressional gridlock. The cause of congressional gridlock can be attributed to the difference in liberal and conservative views, which can be further examined through some of the nation’s most prominent reoccurring issues such as immigration and gun control.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
In the late 1940’s and the early 1960’s books written by liberal Democrats and aggravated members of the articulate tribe sought solutions to find structural reform in the constitutional separation of powers. However, in Congress-Bashing for Beginners by Nelson W. Polsby he says instead of reforms weakening Congress, what happened is we got a considerably strengthened presidency.
Passing legislation through Congress is a challenge by itself, but for a president acting as chief legislator it can prove to be even harder such as attempting to pass legislation and Congress. For instance, the president of the United States has several significant occupations to conduct while in office, which include the formal roles of Chief of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, Chief Diplomat, and Chief legislator. In modern society, having an understanding of what goes on between the United States Congress and the current president, Barack Obama, acting as chief legislator is crucial to American citizens because although it may not change one’s views of politics, it will aid in having a better understanding of what is going on
... in office and how the congress will act toward the President; whether he be a President that demands respect or one who forfeits it and whether the Congress gives in to the demands of the Executive or if the Congress comes down on t he Executive like a hammer on a nail. This can be accomplished by viewing the circumstances in which a President takes office, the manner in which he carries himself during his term, and the way in which the President leaves as Commander in Chief. Conclusion: The President has neither gained nor lost power. There exists the same balance between Executive and Congress as there was when Washington was sworn in as America's first President. The only difference between then and now, is the fact that today we must wade through the layers of insignificance and precedents that history has forged against us, the political thinker and historian.
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.
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy,
In the federalist paper # 51 James Madison explains and defends checks and balances system in constitution. Each branch is organized in such a way that ensures that any individual branch never becomes too powerful. The quote “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” means if the power is evenly distributed through the three branches, it will essentially cancel each other out and none of them would have an advantage politically over the other. However, if the principles of checks and balances were strictly followed it would mean citizens elect the president, the legislator, and the judges. That is not practical because an average citizen most likely won’t know the necessary qualifications a legislator or judge should possess. Because of
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.
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
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.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...