Common public thought today views Congress (at least those in the same party as the President) as subordinate to the executive branch. Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher once wrote, “In an effort to promote programs of the national party, the president’s party leaders typically assume the role of administration lieutenants in Congress” (Thurber165). The policy agenda of the president, thus, becomes the task of Congress to execute for him. As evidence of this phenomenon in the American public sphere, a reference may be made to the media firestorm that followed Harry Reid when he commented, “I don’t work for the president” (Thurber 165). The public saw this comment as a jab at the leadership of the president as opposed to the factual statement …show more content…
Baker believed that tensions between Congress and the president arose for several reasons: divergent bargaining strategies where presidents are willing to make deals with the opposition party to pass legislation even if it means circumventing the leaders of their own party; the institutional complexity of Congress where what the president wants may create problems for members of his own party and the party structure is much more convoluted; and the increasingly narrow margins by which majority parties control the House and Senate (Thurber 167-168). The relationship between Congress and the president is, thus, tenuous and subject to frequent change. Many presidents struggle to strike an effective provisional partnership which consequently makes passing their policy agenda increasingly more …show more content…
Neustadt’s book, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, reaffirms Baker’s concept of a provisional partnership by stressing the importance of persuasion in the office of the presidency. Neustadt argues that the most successful presidents rely heavily on persuasion – the act of convincing people that what the office of the White House wants is what they should do – in order to accomplish his policy agenda (30). While the president is given the advantage of authority and status (in many cases, neither is innate to the position and may be lost throughout the actions of the president), the relationship between the president and those who he may be asking something of (i.e. Congress, a Department, etc.) is still reciprocal and cannot be accomplished by the actions of the president alone. The president is “mutually dependent” on those with whom he brokers deals, effectively tempering the amount and size of his power (Neustadt 31). Thus, persuasion may be seen as a two-way street, like the provisional partnership of
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.
...ilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy. That is why things never get done.
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
The most important phase that Neustadt argues about the presidency and presidents is the persuasion power. He writes that the president cannot simply command “do this, do that”, as we all know “nothing will happen”. Different branches of the government have different constituencies and different interests. To make things happen, the president must use his bargaining skill to persuade others. Neustadt, to back his view gives a historical prove in which president Truman,
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.
No body of government truly has a truly perfect image in the U.S., but in particular is the congress. There are quite a few theories as to why Congress has a bad public image. Congress may have a poor public image but if it weren’t for it’s own members speaking ill of the institution then the image problem could easily be fixed.
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.
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
To explain, the president has little control with regard to current events and policy making, his wishes are ignored, and his hands are tied. With such circumstances, the president’s desires are viewed as, just that, desires, rather than commands. Unless of course he holds the power of persuasion. In order to reach political power and presidential achievement, the president must persuade other political actors his interests are theirs (Howell 243). Howell counter argues Neustadt, explaining the president exerts influence not by the power of persuasion, but by his unilateral powers. “The president can make all kinds of public policies without the formal consent of Congress”. The unilateral powers emerge from institutional advantages such as the structure, resources, and location within the system of separated powers. (Howell 246-247). By that Howell means, the president’s power does not derive from persuasion, but from simply being the
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.
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
Van, B. S. D., & University of Pittsburgh. (1995). Post-passage politics: Bicameral resolution in Congress. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 6th edition http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text idx?idno=31735057897302;view=toc;c=pittpress
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.