Mervin, David. George Bush and the Guardianship Presidency. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996. Dr. David Mervin is an International Political Science scholar specializing in American political and presidential studies. He is author of several books focusing on American presidents. He also authored dozens of journal articles on United States foreign policy development. Mervin is currently Emeritus Reader of Politics at the University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. Mervin argues that Bush practiced a style of presidential leadership known as “Guardianship.” He contends that Bush’s presidency was marked by foreign policy success and domestic failure. Mervin claims that the failure of Bush’s domestic record is demonstrated by his …show more content…
Activists expect grand change or the president is a failure. An activist must have a bold agenda, with clear vision statements. Guardianship is a concept where the president is caretaker of the office vice an agent of change. The guardian seeks to maintain stability and deal with situations as they arise through studied consideration and pragmatic solutions to problems (p. 8). Mervin says that academics and political scientists are mainly liberals who expect great presidents to run activist presidencies to create change; the change being in the form of domestic social reform. Activists expect grand change or the president is labeled a …show more content…
Most policy decisions were held at the White House staff level. This follows the practices of most modern administrations. Domestic policy was heavily influenced by Bush’s Chief Of Staff, John Sununu. Bush relied Sununu to work his domestic policy issues. The author notes that Sununu takes on a bad cop role to Bush’s good cop persona. Sununu is infamous for being harsh and abrasive, yet the White House runs fairly smoothly during his three-year tenure. When Sununu steps down during Bush’s last year in office, his replacement Sam Skinner, is unable to maintain the staff
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.
Beginning with a comparative analysis of the manner in which Neustadt and Skowronek conceptualize of the Presidency itself, the essay notes that Neustadt’s theory operates at the micro level while Skowronek’s operates at the macro level. Arguing that this difference is salient in creating a division of labor between the two, the essay moves forward to examine each theory’s ability to expatiate upon differences between Presidents by applying them to both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Noting Neustadt’s superiority vis-à-vis Johnson and Skowronek’s greater potency as it pertains to Nixon, and how Reagan best shows the strengths and weaknesses of both authors, this essay proposes that this discussion lends further support to the notion that each theory is best suited to examining different facets of the Presidency.
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.
The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.
Greenstein, F.I, (2005). Presidents, their Styles and their Leadership. Working Papers, Center for Public Leadership: Princeton University.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
In chapter eight in The Balancing the Presidential Seesaw (2000), Vaughan offers additional observations and recommendations for future presidents. As a former president, Vaughan observation is clear that “presidency is not about headlines – whether to make or avoid them – it is about working hard day in and day out, year in and year out” to accomplish the community college’s goal (Vaughan, 2000, p.
In recent years, President Obama and the way he handles things has become a very controversial topic. In the article “Obama’s ‘Where’s Waldo?’ Presidency” Ruth Marcus describes that controversy, in which she gives her opinion of President Obama. Marcus begins by discussing how in Barack Obama’s campaign he talked about “change we can believe in”, but she later tells the reader that he has “been missing in action” (Marcus, Paragraph 1). Throughout the article, she tells of numerous issues that Obama seemed to be missing on, and presents the reader with the question, where is President Obama?
...cy. From better working conditions and greater standards of living to the active supervision of modern corporations, the powerful federal government we have today reflects a lot upon Roosevelt’s efforts from a century ago. Many of the protective domestic provisions fought for in Roosevelt’s terms are now mere conventional responsibilities that we heedlessly expect our government to fulfill. In addition, modern foreign policies are also reminiscent of the foreign policy developed in Roosevelt’s time; the US has now adapted the reputation and the responsibility to “police” many foreign affairs, although collaboratively with other major countries through the United Nations. Ultimately, Roosevelt’s administration established a direction of government control that shaped the modern organized bureaucracy that keeps a watchful eye on labor, corporations and foreign affairs.
The president decides his policies and strategy for his term in office. The White House Staff is present to help implement the president’s policies smoothly, and help many aspects of his presidency run smoothly. It is important that the White House speaks with one voice, and this is accomplished through following the president’s policies. While the staff does not choose the tasks they preform, but they do run the day-to-day operations of the office. This is why the president will choose someone he trusts to preform the tasks well, and the way he would want. At the beginning of a term the president is more likely to choose individuals who believe in the promises he ran his campaign on (National Journal). However, later in his term the president will often fill these positions with people who are loyal (National Journal). This will decrease friction and disagreement within the White House, and help promote a single message. Obama, in his second term, has been filling key staff positions with people loyal to him. This is to create a unity between himself and his staff. He will be facing a Republican held house and senate. Obama will be busy fighting with congress, and does not need fighting within his own staff. Individuals who have positions that deal with the press must be saying things the way the president wants. Speechwriters must articulate the message and use the language the president wants. The president has
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.
The Journal of the International Institute. 2000. The. The Regents of the University of Michigan. 07 March 05 Sidey, Hugh. The “The Presidency.”
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics Trend and Transformation. New York: St. Martin's, 1981. Print.
Hudson, V. M., & Vore, C. S. (1995). Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Mershon International Studies Review, 209-238.