Karl Weber, a sociologist and political economist, describes authority as a form legal domination. Followers comply with the rules of these individuals because they consider their authority to be legitimate. While the legitimacy of domination does not have to be rationality, right, or natural justice, it is legitimate because individuals accept, obey, and consider domination to be required. The president of the United States is considered a traditional, legal and charismatic authority, where the legitimate domination rests on the idea of the legality of enacted rules for these individuals elevated to their status to give commands. The news article Obama's Executive-Power Use Shows He Still Holds Some Cards by NPR.com shows the President Barrack Hussein Obama II, the 44th president of the United States, as a traditional, legal and charismatic authority figure based on the characteristics of domination defined by Karl Weber.
The president can use his executive power to issue rules, regulations, and instructions, that are binding, yet do not require legislative approval. This use of executive power will allow President Obama to “do an end-run around the impasse created by congressional Republicans who…block virtually any controversial legislation.” By altering their current path the Obama administration can focus on renovating current housing polices, allowing homeowners to refinance their homes and avoiding massive foreclosure. This "we can't wait" initiative will also focus on making changes to college loan policies, in order to ease graduating students concerns with repaying federal loans and provide hope for potential students considering college. As the incumbent candidate, President Obama’s "we can't wait" initiative, will “allow him to actually put into effect real changes as opposed to merely proposing them.” These changes will allow the President to campaign against the GOP candidates, in the 2012 election, “by contrasting his specific policy changes against” their “lack of any policies other than to stand by and watch.”
By interpreting this article through Max Weber’s theory of power, domination, legitimation, and authority, the reader is shown the aspects that validate Obama’s authority and legitimacy of the presidential domination over the American people. The United States Presidency shows Weber’s concept of consecutive domination becoming a structured system that is regularly accepted by society. President Obama can be seen as defining Weber’s concept of power, because through his use of the presidential power of executive order he achieved his own will over the resistance of the republican congressional legislators. This patrimonialism type of setup is exemplified by the United States Presidents authority through administration and represents the traditional authority of the Presidents power.
Stephen Skowronek writes about political time and how one can determine the legacy president will leave behind at the time their presidency is done. The president has immense powers when he comes to office but the challenges they each face vary depending on the time they take office. Skowronek analyzes and demonstrates that the most essential factor for a president to attempt to legitimize his actions and orders will be the actions of the president before him. According to the actions of George W. Bush is how we can determine where Barack Obama falls under and following the chain the next president. If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election she would fall under the politics of articulation and Barack Obama would fall under the politics
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.
He thinks that regardless of the existence of other influential performers from other branches of the government, the president can act based on many other rights he possesses, such as executive orders and national security directives. These tools will allow him to bypass the traditional legislative process. Despite that both authors define power as president’s prime influence, Howell however argues that president has more capacity in which he can partially decide the outcome of a given situation if not whole. Howell steps further and insists more on the president’s capability despite the fact that Neustadt defines power as individual power. Howell envisions that the President must influence the “content of public policy”, in contrast, Neustadt’s argument is based on the exercise of the “Effective” impact by President. Howell, on the other hand, considers that the President is way more powerful on his own than Neustadt thinks. Howell thinks that executive orders, for example, open the path to the President to make important decisions without trying to persuade Congress or the other branches of the government to gain their support. Howell uses President Truman’s decision about federal employees. Howell’s view of unilateral presidential action perfectly fits moments when of crisis when the President, as the Commander in Chief cannot afford the long process of the congressional decision making. As he writes “a propensity of presidents, especially during times of crisis, to unilaterally impose their will on the American public.”
In analyzing the institution of power so closely, the author has brought to light a multiple
Back in 1980, Republican president nominee Ronald Reagan pledged throughout his campaign that it was his goal to “restore the great, confident roar of American progress, growth and optimism”. Restoration, reinvigoration, and reclamation of values believed to be lost by the presidential treachery he was succeeding. Fast forward to 2008, Democratic president nominee Barack Obama did not see a need for restoration, he saw a need for new waves with his slogan “change we can believe in” after the economic destruction by W. Bush. Being such dramatic foils, the two men represent different eras of American politics. The unprecedented election of Obama severed Reagan’s seemingly everlasting legacy, signaling real changes coming to the presidency. The “Reagan Revolution” is remembered as an era of conservatism and economic peace, while Obama’s terms are viewed with mixed emotions. Obama’s impact can definitely be argued, as political information was more readily accessible in his presidency than any other in history; thanks to new technology and social communications, but since time has passed, so can Reagan’s. The use of their presidential powers is what a president is remembered for. Assessing the ranges in their backgrounds, motivations, policy creation and execution, and overall achievements, one can determine
Over the course of the semester, the class has discussed a variety of theories about legitimacy and government. In Hobbes, authority hinges on the Leviathan, with Locke, authority rests on the people and with Rousseau, an extreme version of Locke. Yet in each case, there appears to be a focus on one individual or one group of people. What institutions can enforce that the group who possesses legitimate power do not overstep their authority? Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu advocates for a solution that results in a system of government that has the sovereign not abuse his or their power. Thus, a system of checks and balances.
The following paper will touch on the controversies of Obama’s qualifications for office. From here, I will bring to surface many of Obama’s flaws in character, such as dishonesty and hypocrisy. This dishonesty is seen throughout Obama’s terms. It has played a significant role through Obama’s manipulation tactics to misguide America. Then, I will show how Obama is using this manipulation to promote his socialist/anti-colonialism goals for The United States of America.
Ginsberg, Benjamin and Theodore J. Lowi. 2000. American Government: Freedom and Power. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
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.
C. Wright Mills in his article “ The Structure of Power in American Society” writes that when considering the types of power that exist in modern society there are three main types which are authority, manipulation and coercion. Coercion can be seen as the “last resort” of enforcing power. On the other hand, authority is power that is derived from voluntary action and manipulation is power that is derived unbeknownst to the people who are under that power.
The changes that formed the modern presidency shaped a presidency that uses power aggressively and significantly. The modern presidency
Edwards, George C. "Chapter 2 Neustadt's Power Approach to the Presidency." Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert Y. Shapiro, Martha Joynt Kumar, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. 9-15. Questia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010.
Domhoff, G. W. (1990). The power elite and the state: How policy Is made in America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. "The Presidency." We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. 9th Essentials ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. 306-26. Print.
When power becomes legitimate, it is then recognized as authority (Denhardt et al, 2001). Power becomes authority when it is accepted and even desired by society. As stated by the course study notes, “authority refers to a situation where a person (or group) has been formally granted a leadership position”. An individual has authority when everyday norms and regulations support the exercising of power by that individual. In an organizational setting, “authority is hierarchal and vested in positions” (Week 9 Study Notes), which are defined by “organizational charts, positions and rules” (Week 9 Study Notes). Generally, power in authority also involves the possibility of rewards such as promotions and good performance reviews.