Actions and Behavior of the President The broad language of the second article of the Constitution left many questions about the power and authority of the President and the Executive branch of the Federal Government. Since George Washington, each Chief Executive has come to the position with different beliefs on the responsibility and power of the President. However the performance of the president is often shaped by outside factors which control how he must act as a Chief Executive. The behavior of presidents come from a number of different criteria. A president's personal character, his approach to the position and circumstances during his term all contribute to presidential behavior.
The voters vote for parties rather than candidates. In th... ... middle of paper ... ... government can vary greatly from country to country. In this system, when the President and Premier are from different political parties, the government is cohabited. If the president's party win the elections, the system resembles the presidentialism, where Premier is "weak" and state policy is executed by President. In opposite, if the president's party loses elections, President just becomes a figurehead, delegates the comptences to the Premier.
Richard Neustadt stated in his book Presidential Power that “Presidential power is the power to persuade.”(Neustadt, pg.11) Persuasion and bargaining are techniques that presidents can use to influence policy. Neustadt explains how persuasion can help a president get laws passed and to get favorable public opinion.Neustadt explains that bargaining is important in order to influence other politicians in Congress and inside of the executive branch. He stated that "The essence of a President's persuasive task is to convince such men that what the White House wants of them is what they ought to do for their sake and on their authority" (Neustadt, pg.30). Neustadt believes that a president should use persuasion than commanding because it is more effective.Commanding shows that a president is weak. Commanding is only effective in certain situations.
While relationship between the legislative, executive and judiciary largely remained the same, the public perception of President’s place in system has changed (Jeffrey Tulis, 1990). In the twentieth century, a strong executive emerged and was institutionalized in American national politics. Even though the framers anticipated that Congress would be the predominant branch of government, contemporary presidents wield formidable formal and informal resources of governance. As a result, the public expectations of presidents have grown and created a gap between expectations and formal powers. In an attempt to explain presidential power and its limits, four major often conflicting theories of presidential power has emerged in the last four decades.
He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
When looking at the United States Presidents, we picture the president to embody great leadership skill, who could show strong communication skill, and be in a position to display power. When people elected the president, there are certain quality traits and skill that the president need to display. Some people will view the president as grandiose narcissism, while others may have a different perspective of the president. People who are narcissist, believe their selves to become more important than others. Narcissist people are also overconfident of their decision making, and have difficulty at learning from their mistake (Watts, Lilienfeld, Smith, Miller, Campbell, Waldman, Rubenzer, & Faschingbauer, 2013).
Its removal might cause civil war. This paper will replace a presidential institution of the United States with an institution of parliament. Let’s now take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of the current system the United States has. In Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government, Arend, Lijphart has debated disadvantages and advantages of the presidential system. The advantage of presidential government, executive stability, is based on the president’s secured term of office; it contrasts with the executive instability that may result in a parliamentary system’s use of the legislature’s power to dissatisfied cabinets by the votes of snap election, the cabinet can lose majority support in the legislature (Lijphart 1992, p.11).
Using professional reputation and public prestige, the President can increase bargaining power. By building a record of success, the President can become more influential through presidential persuasion, in policy making, and conserve presidential power. According to Neustadt, persuasion measures power. The President is responsible for actions contributing to gaining and losing of presidential power. Presidential power is based upon skill and not upon circumstance.
This power is demonstrated by the authority that the president is given by the constitution and the way that is interpreted and how presidents have used their powers and challenged congress for more power. The power of congress has been asserted in many ways, and will continue to be as long as our nation remains. The balance between powers will also remain in fluctuation, due to events that change the course of history. I do believe Congress should have an important role in foreign policymaking because it is crucial to our system of checks and balances. If one branch maintains too much power, the work of our forefathers to create a system different from the parliamentary system in England would all be in vain.
With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy. The Constitution lays out power sharing amongst the President and Congress.