Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
American political system
The political system of the united states
American political system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: American political system
Dual Executive/President
The idea of an elective head of state for the American chief executive, in its conception, was virtually without precedent. The idea of an American dual presidency, split between domestic and foreign arenas is itself without precedent. A dual presidency would suit America well due to the pressures of the office of President of the United States. As Commander-in-Chief, the
President bears incredible pressures and responsibilities. The President not only has power in the United States, but also tremendous influence throughout the world. It is not arrogant to change the presidency in order to manage
America's vast interests all over the globe. The US is certainly not isolationistic anymore, so creating an office for a foreign affairs executive is simply realistic. Thus, the President is not only torn between domestic and foreign responsibilities, but s/he must find time to campaign. A dual presidency with a domestic and foreign leader could divide these campaigning duties. In addition, a dual presidency is better adapted to handle simultaneous crises. A dual presidency is a modern day answer to the realities of the American presidency. Essentially, the idea of a dual executive is rooted in the concept of a plural executive. Back in the time of the writing of the Constitution, some anti-federalists wanted a weak executive. This weak executive was called a plural executive or an executive council. (Storing 49) The purpose of such a plural executive was not only to weaken the executive, but also to prevent a monarchy from ruling. In fact, an anti-federalist named Randolph opposed an executive-of-one so much that he believed it to be the “foetus (fetus) of the monarchy.”(Storing 93) Yet today the threat of monarchy is laughable.
The proposed dual executive has no intentions of weakening that branch.
Rather, a dual executive makes the branch more efficient, focused, and in touch.
`Plural' is not a fitting term for the dual executive. This is because a plural executive implies several office holders, or a committee. The more people, the more chaos and disunity occurs.
In the 70th chapter of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made a case for an executive with a great deal of unity. If power was concentrated in a single chief magistrate, then the branch would be more cohesive. Hamilton relied on the failures of plural executive in the history of Rome and Greece to make a case against executive councils.
Some may argue that by dividing the executive office, it saps the energy and vigor required of the job. Inversely, it can be argued that the President has so much to do that his energy is weakened by simply being spread too thin.
Greece and Rome’s governments included many democratic aspects that continue to be used in modern
An issue in Texas today is whether the public have sufficient control over the executive branch of Texas government. Texas has a plural executive, which mean the public not only elects the Lieutenant Governor, but also the Attorney General, Comptroller, Land Commissioner, and Agricultural Commissioner (Benson, Clinkscale, and Giardino 216). These elections add significantly to the “long ballet” that the public can vote for. Some argue that because there are so many to vote for, people cannot adequately vote for the positions. The research and attention needed to stay up to date on the elections can steer people away from voting. Many people vote for the governor and the lieutenant governor because of the title and how high the positions are.
During peacetime, the President is given other authorities by Congress. One of these authorities that he/she has is that they can initiate the reorganization of the white house staff. However, they can only rid themselves of a certain amount of people. They can’t totally reorganize the staff such as getting rid of whole agencies and departments. T...
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
Socrates evaluates four city constitutions that evolve from aristocracy: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. As a result that these four types of cities exist, four additional types of individuals who inhabit them also exist. Although these city constitutions evolve from aristocracy, Socrates deems aristocracy to be the most efficient, therefore the most just, of the constitutions because the individuals within it are ruled by the rational part of the soul.
This paper will study the different facets of leadership and power in small group interactions. The variety and number of studies that have focused on leadership and power attest to the importance and ambiguousness that surround any attempts to define their origins or implications. First, the definitions of leadership and power from a social psychological viewpoint will be presented. Then a discussion will follow examining the effect of different variables on the leadership effectiveness and then a look at the convergence of power and leadership and their interrelationship.
Socrates and I grew up alongside the Athenian democracy, and experienced her vicissitudes in the past seventy years. We have both heard and experienced cycle of five types of governments that Socrates had mentioned. (Plato, Republic 8.547e) Our democracy was established hundreds years ago under Cleisthenes and turned to tyranny under Isagoras. In our childhood, Athens was a timarchy, and then Pericles ruled Athens with the
Executive A can be described as having a “Level 5” leadership style. Shying away from attention and giving credit to others shows “greatness through a paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will.” (Collins, 2005) Accepting responsibility for mistakes and poor results, along with having pride in developing strong leaders, further supports the definition and actions of a “Level 5” leader. The scenario describes the will of Executive A is described as driven, ambitious and focused on the success of the company. With the scenario information this is a full description of the “Level 5” type leader.
Tost, L., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: the negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0180
Organizations are experiencing a rapid transformation in the environment, which has caused them to reevaluate how they do business. Economic changes, globalization, and expansions in technology have warranted the need to adapt quickly to changes in the environment (Schneider, 2002). Organizational leadership has three general components: setting the direction for the organization, organizational performance, and change management (Johnson, 2011). It is critical for organizations to position themselves in this competitive market for success.
Vroom, V. H. & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Usually, the belief is that the managers, administrators, presidents or even the supervisors, have the greatest source of power, because they are at the top of the ladder in the hierarchy of the organization. The reality is that they need
Greece, originally ruled by an oligarchy ("rule of the few"), operated under the premise that those selected to rule were selected based not upon birth but instead upon wealth. Eventually, however, Greek government became democratic. Rome, on the other hand, was a republic that elected its officials, and common citizens were not allowed as many opportunities as Athenians to participate in matters of the state. While Greece had branches of government to represent citizens, Rome implemented branches of government to represent different components of society. For example, Rome had authorities to supervise public works projects, administer justice, supervise recreational activities and conduct a census (text). Rome, who, like Greece, was a polytheistic society, also appointed a priest for life who was in charge of the entire state's religion.
C. Wright Mills, in this selection, explains to us how there are a certain group of people who make the important decisions in our country, the “power elite.” Mills splits this group into the 3 top leaders: the corporate elite, the military elite, and the small political elite. These 3 different departments work together as a whole to make decisions regarding the country.