The Presidency and Democracy
To evaluate the position of the president, the concept of democracy must first be
considered. Most Americans simply assume that the United States is a democracy.
However, before such an assumption is made it is wise to understand the common
definition of the word democracy. The Random House College Dictionary defines
democracy as, “Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents
under a free electoral system.” Does the United States fit this definition? Moreover,
how does the role of the president affect the United States’ claim to democracy?
From a broad perspective the United States does indeed fit the definition of a
democracy. The citizens of the United States continuously chose agents to represent
them in government. Of the three branches of government that the United States has all
the members of two are chosen this way. However once a individual is elected to office
the general public looses a good deal of its authority over that person’s actions. This
abuse of the democratic system reaches as far up as the presidency. The president is
supposed to be a servant to the people, exercising their wishes and fulfilling their goals.
This is not always the case. After examining the actions of some of the modern
presidents it is evident that the president can be a hindrance to democracy as well as a
supporter.
One of the most blatant, yet rarely noticed by the public, abuses of the democratic
system occurs during presidential campaigns. This is when presidential candidates make
promises in their campaign, that when elected to office that abandon. The reaso...
... middle of paper ...
...y to
many of them. With his message of truth was also a message of hope and his frankness
inspired the people to trust him. It is a president’s duty to keep the public informed about
the country and his ideas. Many times by informing the people truthfully a president can
gather support for his plans. The president and the people working together is the only
way for a democracy to truly exist in the United States.
It is important that the president’s power be tempered by the ideals of the
democracy. Whether or not the president feels that his actions are justified because of
circumstances he must always consider the will of the people as his driving force. The
presidency can not be evaluated with out taking into account our democratic government
and likewise the democracy can not be judged without considering the role and influence
of the president.
success. In many aspects, he can be regarded as the first modern president, as he confronted and
A speech utilizes information that may be interesting to the audience or that which is known. This is to make sure that information relayed creates the desired impact. The president has used factual information, examples, emotions and a persuading tone to urge the leaders to work together with him so as to ensure the welfare of the people. He has been able to explain the efforts of the people and where the leaders might be failing to influence positively on the people. Accordingly, he has explained to the people the methods which can be effective in ensuring that they remain committed to the people they serve. In addition, he had explained his personal commitment to the same.
...e, that it being “un-democratic” is actually a strength that sometimes helps our nation in making important decisions that others will not make?
by using several different methods to persuade the public’s opinion and the U.S Congress to agree with them.
Democracy in the United States became prominent in the early to mid 19th century. Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was inaugurated in 1829 and was best known as the person who mainstreamed democracy in America. Because he came from a humble background, he was the “genuine common man.” (Foner, pg. 303) He claimed he recognized the needs of the people and spoke on behalf of the majority [farmers, laborers]. However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost.
stayed loyal to him, using the “public offices should be for the people” pundit as a front or a
The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society. The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic... ...
... individuals. For he once told his nation, "True individual freedom cannot exist without security and independence" (Freedman 1990, p. 494). That quality was his real claim for being known as the man that he was.
Nation the right to boast of fairness and justice being served without conflicting with personal
A defining attribute of America’s system of government is the participation of the citizens in decisions. Unlike many countries in the world today, one dictator does not decide the path for the whole nation. People from ordinary backgrounds have the opportunity to have an affect on laws passed in our country. While voting is the more common form of exhibiting this privilege of participation, citizens also have the ability to run for offices in our government. The structure of our government is unique in that there are numerous offices to be held within our government which are relatively equal in power. Officials within the federal government can be categorized as being part of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government. Understanding the structure and function of these branches is important when considering the uniqueness of our nation, as well as knowing the qualifications one must posses to obtain these offices.
government’s ability to hold true to its true purpose, which is to establish a government
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in major shift in United States foreign policy. For years, the United States supported tyrannical dictators in return for stable anti-communist government receptive to United States interests. The Cold War resulted in a new world order with the United States as the lone global hegemonic power. In Eastern Europe in particular, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of economic growth and a large increase in the number of liberal democracies. Although the world saw a large increase in liberal democracies, a new regime type referred to as competitive authoritarianism began to emerge. According to Levitsky and Way, “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy” . In labeling these regimes as authoritarian and not democratic, Levitsky and Way place emphasis on the importance of differentiating these questionable regimes from prototypical democracies. In their definition they argue that all democracies have four inherent traits; “Executives and legislatures are chosen through Elections that are open, free, and fair, virtually all adults possess the right to vote, political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, association, to criticize the government are protected and elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders” . These, Levitsky and Way argue are fundamental for the prospects of democracy. ...
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
The president’s accumulation of personal power can make up for his lack of institutional powers. The president must act as the “lubricant” for the other sectors of government in order to preserve order and accomplish business. Neustadt emphasizes the president’s ability to forge strong personal relationships and his or her charisma, indicating that these characteristics affect the president’s ability to persuade. According to Neustadt, a successful president persuades the public, congress, and foreign powers to align their motives and views with him. Two presidents who validate this statement are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As two presidents who do not validate this statement, Neustadt cites George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.