Tompkins is incorrect about Johnson because he was a bad president, no matter the time, or congressman in charge. Johnson let his personal vendetta against aristocrats and view of African Americans cloud his judgment. Also he did not work with moderates even though they desired to work with him, which would have given him more support in Congress. Plus he knowingly got himself impeached and did not care. A President should put the country before himself and the presidency also requires him to provide stability of the Government.
Andrew Jackson Many of our early leaders of our country like Andrew Jackson have made a huge impact in history and in our society today. Some people would disagree and argue that Jackson was a very cruel, horrid man who was nothing but selfish and greedy and he did whatever he could do to get what we wanted in life and it did not matter what the consequences were. But what they do not know is that during “The Age of Jackson”, it helped shape the national agenda that we lacked and also fix our American policies that we did not enforce. From believing that the president’s authority was derived by the people, having rotating applicants in politics, and started the power to veto, he made a tremendous impact on our society today that you would have
In the gist of it all napoleon was a great army leader but he was not a great leader for his people. He messed up the whole revolution. He crowned himself an emperor after they overthrew their monarch. It was bad for the people but they had no choice because of the fact that he just crowned himself the emperor. If the people had any choice, which they realized later they did they should have not led him lead.
Bush was a far-reaching president in American history, but he is not a good president or a hero because he started the war and let the economic deficits increase. Some people may think that he made some excellent decisions and led America to several positive aspects. However, the damage from the war and the economic deficits have remained for a long time. Even when Obama became the next president, Obama also needs to solve these problems that were caused by Bush. As a result, Bush had much more negative effects than positive effects.
Jackson was a successful president in his own mind, escaping difficult living conditions as a child in South Carolina and fighting for the nation in the War of 1812 to completing his goals as president. Some of his achievements, however, did not benefit the country and its people. His egocentric behavior caused for harsh and brutal actions towards Indians. Although Jackson was able to fulfill his goals in his two terms in office, he was one of the worst and most controversial candidates to be elected into a high-ranking position, such as the President of the United States. Right off the bat, Jackson wasted no time in making his first unconvincing decision as president.
John Adams John Adams was criticized during his presidency by his enemies as well as his colleagues. Obviously, his reputation as president doesn't really bring a positive thought to ones head. But does John Adams deserve a better reputation as the president of the United States? He just did not do a very good job when it came to picking his cabinet. His colleagues messed up his reputation.
This shows Jackson had the power to manipulate people. In just a few years of law Jackson, now eighteen met his soon to be wife, Rachel Robards. There was a small problem though…Rachel was married. But Jackson being the terrifying man that he was, played with a huge knife during the divorce trial; this p... ... middle of paper ... ...er as president by exceeding his limits and allowing his personal happiness and emotions influence his decisions that may have affected him positively but affected the rest of the United States in a negative way; which was unbelievably selfish. He left the nation with confusion and failures instead of contributing to it, achievements.
It is never the less a constitutionally limited presidency. The powers of the executive, vested in the president, are set ou... ... middle of paper ... ...ould barely recognise the American presidency today. Yet its effectiveness is still influenced by the constitutional devices, which they employed to prevent an over-powerful executive. The president is the victim of a deep paradox within the American political psyche - a craving for clear leadership but a distrust of those who exercise power. The changing role of the USA also presents the president with another paradox - while it is now the worlds only super power it is no longer the worlds economic colossus: Japan, Europe and in the future China are major rivals.
Even though he was able to nominate quite experienced people, the fear of “political humiliation” made “many of the president’s choices, once so eager to go to Washington felt more like public enemies than potential public servants” (Alter 121). He wasn’t able to put the politics aside and nominate the person he wanted to get in the first place. In some aspects of politics, where everyone thought President Obama would show his toughness, instead he ended up showing his weakness.
Many consider that King’s input to the Civil Rights Movement is over-credited and exaggerated. One must recognise tha... ... middle of paper ... ...me issues in his private life do cloud his image, it has to said that his actions during the Civil Rights Movement overshadow them. Claims that King was a coward for not leading his own Marches quite frankly are ludicrous. Could you name one leader in the twentieth century that actually led and fought in his own wars/battles/movements? Martin Luther King totally deserves credit that he truly is a great leader.