Category: American politics

Introduction: Description of the dispute

Judicial review is a distinctive feature of constitutional law in the United States. This is The reason why the power held by federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions can be overlooked by the supreme court which in most cases its faced by disagreements among the detractors and its supporters about its doctrines and its application.

The conduction of a presidential elections and declaring a winner is the most important decision to be made in a democratic state. As simple as it all sounds presidential election are complex processes.

The United States was a victim of the interesting interplay experienced between the executive and the judicial branches of government during the 2000 U.S. general elections.

This report describes and analyzes the role of judicial review in the outcome of the 2000 presidential results in America. The election results ended up being a court issue where the United States Supreme Court had to intervene and pronounced George W. Bush the winner even though the election was closely contested.

In this paper, I will seek to analyze the threat that was posed by the Bush V Gore case to the judicial procedures in this country whereby in the 2000 presidential elections provoked indifference between the running candidates and their supporters leading to a series of court procession to determine the outcome results. Americans turned out to take part in the elections through casting votes and following the vote the counting process.

However this was disrupted by the dispute that erupted as vote counting process came to a close in the state of Florida. The principal problem during the 2000 American presidential elections was the manner in which the votes were counted since the election victory hung upon a terribly close margin and the most challenged fight for Florida’s 25 electoral votes. According to many experts like Thayer views, there was no uniformity standards employed while in counting the different types of ballots across the nations for years.

The nature of balloting during an election in United States varies from state to state across the nation. The variation could be in terms of the size of areas in geographical measures or the number of people who are eligible and registered voters. How an individual will cast the vote is entirely a process that is overseen by the local officials because most of the voting systems are paid for locally.

They oversee the kind of equipment to be used and the forms of ballots to be used. Absent ballots which had not been counted in some jurisdictions were left out once, it was determined there were fewer absentee ballots than the difference in the vote between the two leading candidates. According to the Electoral College system, a candidate who wins the elections is considered to “take-all”,having been allocated all votes he/she is declared the victor.

On November 7, 2000, after the completion of a nationwide count of ballot papers records showed that Al Gore was in the lead against his opponent Bush with a total of 266-246 of the electoral votes. The winning candidate had to garner 270 electoral votes. At that time Florida had not yet concluded its voting outcome for the 25 electoral votes due to machine counting error.

But thereafter as soon as the machine count was over Bush was leading despite the minimal margin that was present, about 100 votes. After declaring Bush as the victor of the elections, Gore requested a manual recount of the ballots to be conducted in certain counties in the state of Florida and his request was backed by a number of state officials who including Florida’s Attorney General Bob Butterworth who headed the Democrats’ campaigns in Florida.

Reasoning of the court in the case

The Florida Supreme Court then extended the deadline for completion of recounts as they ordered a recount of the votes through the manual method for all the ballots which counting machines had not recorded to having any presidential choice. The precise legal claim presented by Bush was that he sorts a stay from the Florida Supreme Court order permitting an electoral recount of the ballots for the presidential elections.

The electoral voting turnout declared Bush the winner over his counterpart by a very small margin. The results of the counts then saw Gore seeking the Florida Supreme Court to order a manual recount of the votes because of the “under votes”. After examining the arguments presented by Gore the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount to be conducted across the state of Florida.

This decision led to Bush appealing the judgment passed by the Florida Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court arguing that their decision was violating the federal statute which requires electors to have finalized all the works at hand before the meeting at the Electoral College commenced. He was being represented by Theodore Olson who claimed that recounting of the votes was violating an equal protection clause that is presented in the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution.

Bugh (2010) notes “the main issue was the questionable votes cast those for democrats’ who may have been confused by how the balloting was being conducted” The procedure for voting involved punching a hole next to an individual preferred candidate a procedure which many Democrats’ supporters complained of having been confused with the name placement of the candidates forcing many to vote for the wrong candidate.

Others claimed to have had a problem as the machines failed to make a hole at the correct sport and hence they were only able to indent their choice. Apart from these there are those people who voted for more than one presidential candidate amidst the confusion, sparking more controversies as to whether or not a vote recount could be conducted.

Why the decision was Problematic

Once the issue was presented to the legal institutions, it brought into light the use of policy in solving matters involving judicial decision-making (Cannon, 2000). According to the courts, procedures governing the manual count did not satisfy the minimum requirement for no arbitrary treatment of voters a clause found under the Equal Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of the cast votes but the appeal of the case to U.S. Supreme Court verdict is that their decision is to overturn the decision taken by the Florida Supreme Court calling off the manual recounting of the votes.

This decision was the final rule by seven justices who pointed out the decision by the Florida Supreme Court to conduct a recount was an action that failed to observe the constitutional rights stating, “Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the Dec. 12 date will be unconstitutional … we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed”

According to these justices, vote recounting in Florida did not meet the minimum requirement needed for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right to vote (Bush v Gore, 121 S Ct 525, 530 (2000).

Justification for using judicial review

Courts are becoming major players in the political arena as demonstrated in the case Bush v. Gore. The intervention made by the United States Supreme Court in declaring the 2000 election victor made the institution become an object of political controversy. Those who opposed the decision ruled by the Supreme Court viewed the verdict as favoring one party, making the Court partisan.

According to these people (opposers), the courts helped Bush ‘steal the election’ while those proposing that the court had done its best based their argument on the fact that they considered their ruling with the help of legal considerations.

The main problem following the ruling of the case was the dissatisfaction of both those in the political field opposing the verdict and the supporters of Al Gore. “Justices are sometimes accused of targeting their partisan and ideological foes that makes them more liable to strike down laws passed by bipartisan majorities as by ideologically distant majorities” (Bugh 2010).

Another problem arising from the ruling of the case Bush v Gore was that the verdict suggested that the court was motivated by a particular kind of partisanship. A kind of which could not even be compared to the promotion of broad political principles through the development of constitutional doctrine.

In this case, it is clear that there is a difference between the commonly referred to as high politics played by political principle and the low politics of the partisan advantage. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush 5-2 from voting that was carried out by justices who had before contributing to the revolutionizing of constitutional doctrines.

Hence it would be fair to note that during the case these justices were in a way obligated to promote a relatively consistent set of ideological positions which protected the state government process from being interfered with by the federal supervision. However the justices failed and instead they adopted whatever legal arguments they found favoring the Republican candidate George W. Bush. (Kelly 2003)

According to Mark Graber’s reasoning, the twenty first century has brought about a number of changes in U.S Supreme Court’s justices. The Supreme Court justices announced constitutional limits on federal and state power by declaring federal and state laws unconstitutional. There are statements that are used by legal officials to restrain federal and states officials routinely “we hold that the act exceeds the authority of congress”, or “we hold that the congressional veto provision in &244(c) (2)… is unconstitutional (INS v Chadha 462 U.S. 919 959(1983) (Brooks 2000).

The Supreme Court is able to declare a law unconstitutional if the cases are involved in limiting federal authority. This is the same right found in opinions striking down laws that enjoy substantial popular support and in opinions striking down laws of interest only to a few specialists. The same opinion is embraced by both the liberal and conservative justices asserting “this law is unconstitutional” when imposing constitutional limits on government power.

As the establishment of judicial review commenced, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Marshall Courts made it easier for judicial review to be implemented by separating the law from the politics. It was important for America to establish and implement judicial review in both legal and political terms.

Before, Supreme Court justices would have an influence over the political state of America only when influential members of the incumbent regime showed its support for judicial review. These political officials supporting judicial reviews would continue supporting it for as long as the policies decided upon were to the advantage of the influential political members. The establishment of judicial review sheds light on recent debates raised during strategic voting by justices. Marshall’s manner of voting was considered a strategic one.

The laws he thought were unconstitutional were sustained especially those that were perceived as being more aggressive in judicial action and would tend to damage the political foundations for judicial review. Judicial power can be explained as the ability to make an individual do something that they would otherwise not do.

There are several cases that can be used to provide evidence of such powerful practices over time. According to Brooks (1986), there are ways in which laws and politics are used in the structuring of the judicial decisions.

During the 2000 elections the Supreme Court ended the most contentious presidential race by declaring Bush the winning candidate. The Democrats’ supporters accused the courts of having practiced partisan politics while the Republicans congratulated the courts efforts in following the rule of law.

Amidst the controversies around the appointment of President Bush was the debate about judicial decision making process carried out by the Supreme Court. The main question was how the Supreme Court ended up making their decisions, did they base their decision on the constitution and the laws specified or did they base theory decisions on politics and policy references?

The Supreme Court violated some important principles and even circumvented federal law deciding the case. Courts are obligated to make decision on cases basing their preferences on the law and not policy preferences. This is the reason why many challenged the decision made in the case of Bush vs. Al Gore.

Its intervention was clearly unprecedented and intruded upon the political processes in many aspects. Having halted the vote counting process the court is said to have prevented a democratic ending of a states’ most important decision. To many people the statement “ballots shall not be counted” as ruled by the courts was an ironical gesture, considering the fact that United States claims of being a state with special stature as a democracy.

Conclusion

The courts function in deciding which person is right and who is wrong basing their verdict on the states laws. Persons who have the authority to exercise the review power are obligated to ensure that the grantee believes that the grant extends to the arising occasion. Once the decision is wrong then the person is accountable to the grantor only unless a person is an authority paramount to both the grantee and the granter.

The Supreme Court decided to stop ongoing voting recount in Florida, with a 5-2 leading vote, the decision was therefore based on the fact that if vote counting would have been prolonged then the state of Florida had no chance of having their electoral votes counted since they were violating the federal statute and it would not be right to pass the verdict without challenging it in Congress under the Electoral Count Act.

Justification of ending vote recount

The Equal Protection Clause is a guarantee to each person who votes that as a voter, ones ballot cannot be devalued. For this reason the verdict placed by the Florida Supreme Court was against the constitution of America. Recounting the votes would be considered by many critics a fair move in terms of theory but in terms of practice the process was unfair. Besides, the time to stop all ballot counting processes was almost over that is why the court held that there was no constitutional recount that could have been carried out in such a short time.

The court’s reasoning was that counties varied in their balloting procedures so conducting a manual recount of these cast votes would take longer than the stipulated time.

In actual sense the legislative council wanted to take advantage of the “Safe Harbor Act” provided in the United States constitution under section 5. The recount was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court’s decision made new election law which could only be carried out by the states legislature.

Legal counsel experts, (Breyer, Souter, Rehnquist,Scalia and Thomas) agreed that vote recounting in Florida was unconstitutional since it violated the equal protection clause. They opposed basing their argument in respect to the remedy, believing that the decision taken could have been right if only it was stated clearly under a constitutional recount (Cannon 2000).

Taking into consideration that the Equal Protection clause warrants individuals that their ballots cannot be diminished by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment,” the per curiam view argued that the Florida Supreme Court’s slate for recounting ballots was not constitutional – even if the recount was reasonable in theory, it was inequitable in practice.

The confirmation indicates that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, area to area, and county to county. Due to those and other procedural ambiguities, the court ruled that no constitutional recount could be done within the short timeline (that was short since the Florida legislature desired to take advantage of the “safe harbor” provided by 3 USC Section 5).

Abominate to make wide pattern, the per curiam view limited its holding to the present case with Rehnquist (in a concurring view together with Scalia and Thomas) perceived that the recount slate was also not constitutional since the Florida Supreme Court’s verdict made new election law that only the state legislature could pass.

Many law experts concurred with the per curiam arguing that the Florida Court’s recount slate was in contravention with the Equal Protection Clause, but they disputed with respect to the remedy, judging that a constitutional recount could be bent and time could be insubstantial when constitutional liberties are at stake.

Ginsburg and Stevens suggested that because federal laws, the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment ought to stand. Furthermore, the Florida decision was essentially right; the Constitution required that all votes to be counted.

Courts cannot justify their halting vote the counting process in Florida. From the perspective of several legal officials and critics cite the use of the equal protection clause could spark a new era whereby courts would use the clause as a way to get a solution to fundamental inequality issues during an election.The Supreme Court truly lacked jurisdiction to decide the case outcome. The reason being that all evidence presented were not enough to be used for making any decisions most especially because the case was in a political context.

Though the 5 justices invocated the Equal Protection criteria, it is generally suspected of being a partisan scheme, arguing that Florida’s original recount was unconstitutional in fact has grounds: There is no convincing coherent basis for a state to physically recount under votes — ballots in which a machine doesn’t record any vote for president — but not over votes — ballots in which a machine records numerous entries for president (Mark1999)

Also, the 5 justices failed to remand Bush v. Gore to Florida after declaring that the recounting procedures in Florida as unconstitutional and argued that the issue was lawfully unjustified and defenseless. They explained that Dec. 12 was Florida’s self-imposed timeline for closing the presidential vote counting and choosing a schedule of electors for the winning candidate and that this timeline was hours to time Bush v. Gore was served.

According to federal law, “when a state sets its schedule of electors by Dec. 12, the confines of the schedule is not subject to attack during Electoral College proceedings held in Congress on Jan. 6” (Learned 1958). While meeting such a timeline is to be desired, there is no hint at all that the state’s legislature desired to stick to this timeline at the cost of securing an exact vote count and the selecting of the equally justifiable schedule of presidential electors.

Alternatives for the court

The court did not have to make any decisions from case. There were other alternatives available to the court, which made more sense than those selected the by Florida court. The State Supreme Court could have defined a “legal vote”, the refusal of which affected the election.

That is, the Supreme Court needed to look at other election statute, §101.5614(5), to deal with spoiled or defective votes that gives a proviso that no vote shall be disregarded “if there was an apparent sign of the intention of the voter as decided by the canvassing board” (Thayer).

The justices read that point of looking to the voter’s intention as implying that the legislature perhaps meant “legal vote” to refer to a vote recorded on ballots showing what the voter deliberated. It is apparent that the majority might have taken a different reading and thus it is constitutional to follow the majority’s opinion. This alternative preserves the court’s institutional legitimacy and the cherished democratic values. (Bickel 1986)

The courts could have refrained from interfering in the matter because of its political aspects. In respect to political question doctrines, there is a clear separation of power between the Supreme Court and other government institutions. The Supreme Court is not allowed to decide cases that are constitutionally committed to other branches of government. The courts are also obligated not to interfere with issues related to the legislative or executive branches of government to preserve the separation of powers.

Instead the courts would have allowed the matter be resolved by the legislative branch of government which handles electoral processes. Therefore from the Bush v Gore case, it compromises our judicial system as the Supreme Court did not act appropriately in addressing the matter. In addition thought not in a large way, the case exposed how our civil liberties were being compromised and the inability of the judicial system to address them appropriately.

References

Bickel A., (1986). Establishment and general justification of judicial review.New York, NY. John Willey.

Brooks, J. (2000). Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest. CNN. Web.

Bugh, G. E. (2010). “Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System.” In Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities, ed. Gary E. Bugh. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishers.

Bush, et al. v. Gore et al – 531 U.S. 98.Certiorarito the Supreme Court Of Florida.No. 00-949. 2000.

Cannon, C. (2000). After All the Acrimony.The Election Ends on Grace Notes. Web.

Kelly, J. (2003) Judicial review. Harvard Law Review Volume 7 (1893-94) Retrieved from Learned Hand, (1958). The Bill of Rights. Web.

Mark, G. (1999). Problematic establishment of judicial review. New York, NY: John Willey. Web.

The address to the congress by George Bush came one and a half years after twin towers’ bombing in New York. The US government was on high alert due to the threat presented to its national security by terror attacks.The address initially outlined measures to avert terrorist threats. Homeland security was set up with the sole purpose of fighting terrorism from within, while troops sent to Afghanistan had focused on dismantling Al-Qaeda networks (Congress 2002). The economy was on a downward turn, signalled by the rise in the unemployment rates.

The president outlines the first measure to fight unemployment as decreasing income tax. The general state of the economy was subject to criticism by a balanced budget and discipline in spending by the central government. It was important that healthcare be strengthened, making it affordable to the common American by investment of a further 400 billion (Bush, 2003). To achieve independence from reliance on fossil fuel, Federal invested funds in promoting efficient utilisation of energy and research in Automobiles and hydrogen power.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton speech came at a time when the economy was experiencing a boom (Gillette). The economy was on an upturn as indicated by the American cars sale surpassing those of archrivals Japan and the record-breaking opening of new businesses. The president sees America as a pioneer on many fronts and their policies focused on changing from industry to digital system (Clinton, 1996). The address points out that it is important to eliminate bureaucracy thus reducing central government expenditure. A balanced budget led to lowering of interest and the president took this opportunity to call for further negotiation on reduction of budgetary deficit.

Clinton admits that America’s young generation needed protection from explicit content in the media and massive cigarette advertisements. The president’s speech outlines policy measure that aims at sending more Americans to college and at the same time investing more funds into community service. Cooperation between the police and the community is central to fighting gangs in our streets while the congress enacts stringent measures to ensure ammunition do not get into wrong hands. The president made an appointment to re-energize the fight against drugs and its challenges. He added the need for the congress to reconsider their relaxation of environmental regulations. To reduce the federal work force, the government, through Al Gore, delegated some of the decision making to local power and in effect giving power back to average Americans.

The Bush government at this time had an uphill task of turning the economy around. This was the initial stages of what culminated into complete meltdown in 2007-2008.Policy formulated were to cushion the American population against tough financial times. Tax diminutions became effective immediately to ensure that Americans had adequate income after taxation. Clinton’s speech, acknowledged the economic abundance that the American people were experiencing; therefore, his policies aimed at capitalising on the gains made. Reduction of the federal workforce and budgetary deficit was his top priority as it would additionally reduce interest rates in financial institution and instil discipline on federal expenditure. In the wake of terror attacks in New York, the government had to put policy that prevented any further similar occurrence. For instance, it constituted Homeland Security with the mandated to fight terrorism within the American borders. Following Clinton’s address, America did not face any significant terrorist threat hence his policy concentrated on social programs.

References

Bush, G. (2003). Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union. Web.

Clinton, W. (1996). Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union. Web.

Congress. (2002). Homeland Security Act of 2002. Web.

Gillette, J. (ND). U. S. Economy Experiences “Soft Landing” in 1995; Look for More of the Same in 1996. Web.

Marcus Garvey was a prominent Afro-American political leader. He originally hailed from Jamaica but his political activities were conducted mainly in America. Being the enthusiast of the capitalistic ideas, he was convinced that the Afro-Americans, as well as other black people all over the world, had to combine their efforts for a creation of such institutions that would be able to consolidate power and wealth in their ownership. Among other organizations, he founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association.

His ideas were highly influenced by an approach of Booker Washington.

Marcus Garvey was born in Jamaica where he learned the trade of typesetter and began to study journalism. Later on, after an unsuccessful attempt to organize a trade union, he left Jamaica and arrived at England where he attended lectures at the University of London. Having arrived at the USA in 1915, he stated that the black people had to gain a measure of respect by strengthening their economic wealth. With this purpose, he was trying to organize a chain of Afro-American enterprises, which were able to realize their activity independently from the government economic. Though this project was not successful, Garveys persistence made him rather popular among black people.

Garvey was successful in organization of bright public events. He was the originator of the newspaper Negro World, which was very popular in the USA. Practically every year he organized forums with the participation of the Afro-Americans. During these forums, they used the flag of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, which was represented by the combination of the red, black and green stripes. This flag is still popular among the Afro-Americans.

Being a black nationalist Garvey, nevertheless, in achieving his goals had no scruples about interaction with white racist organizations. After his meeting with the authorities of the Ku-Klux-Klan, he was severe criticized by the Afro-American leaders. One of the major opponents of Garvey was Philip Randolph. He was the originator and the head of the Brother of Sleeping Car Porters, which was the first American trade union with the overwhelming majority of black people.

Randolph accused Harvey of the collaboration with white racists. Moreover, Randolph was sure that Garvey was planning a reparation of black people back to Africa. Garvey denied such charges, though he had really sent his representatives to Liberia in order to investigate opportunities for new business projects. The Garveys aim was not the reparation of black people, but the organization of new modern economically independent communities in Africa. His views awoke an echo in hearts of many progressive Afro-American intellectuals.

In 1925 Garvey was sentenced to be confined charging with a mail fraud. Garvey repelled this accusation, and even some of his critics considered them unfair.

Two years later, he was pardoned but as a severe offender without the American citizenship, Garvey was deported to his native country.

Later on in London Garvey began to publish a new journal the Black man. This journal criticized such outstanding public figures as Joe Louis, Paul Robeson and George Baker because of the fact that these people were unable to become the leaders of the Afro-Americans.

However, Garvey was also unsuccessful in expanding his organization. He was rather popular in the USA but at the final stage of his political activity, he worked in England. Garvey died in 1940 in London.

My research topic will be “Women in the USA: the mechanism of gender equality,” which aims to study the processes of the emergence of political power among women in the USA. The role of factors determining the status of American women in the state and society and the degree of influence of women themselves on the development of state policy in general and concerning the female population is considered (Ladam et al., 2018). Within the framework of this paper, the historical period of 90 years, separated by two events, will be analyzed. In 1916 Janet Rankin, the first American woman, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Having started her career as a legislator at the age of 47, Nancy Pelosi became the first American speaker of the House of Representatives at the beginning of the XXI century.

The latter turned out to be at the top of the American political power structure, becoming the second person in the hierarchy of the successors of the U.S. president. In the sphere of the U.S. economy, two significant trends continue to operate, which were characteristic of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Thus, the study of the activities of these politicians will allow us to pay attention to various aspects of the formation and transformation of the political system in the United States. The Speaker of the House of Representatives exerts enormous political influence, determines legislators’ agenda, sends bills to committees for consideration, and appoints House officials (Ladam et al., 2018). The United States of America demonstrates the desire to use internal reserves for the development of society, creating opportunities for the entire disclosure of the potential of the female population of the country, seeing this as a powerful source of its progress.

Sources

A special search engine indexes only scientific texts — this is “Google Scholar”. The indexed sources in this system are likely to be scientific, reliable, and up-to-date. In addition, I can use various information from open sources on the Internet, namely newspapers and magazines, from which the researcher can get information about the news. In addition, I should correspondingly use the library’s capabilities in order to gain access to more sources. The main emphasis in the search for information will be placed on studying open data and biographies about the studied personalities. To do this, attention should be paid to their memories, diaries, or recordings of speeches, with the help of which it will be possible to draw certain conclusions.

Difficulties

In studying for such a long period of time, it is necessary to consider many factors for the study to be considered more significant and objective. However, the problem is the difficulty of avoiding too subjective assessment of the analyzed socio-political situation. Therefore, I would like to understand how to build a narrative to be convincing and reliable. There are no other problems since many open sources allow analyzing various historical events related to these personalities.

Reference

Ladam, C., Harden, J. J., & Windett, J. H. (2018). Prominent role models: High-Profile female politicians and the emergence of women as candidates for public office. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 369–381. Web.

American History

Theodore Roosevelt is known as the 26^th President of the United States and the first president to have served the full cadence in the 20^th century. It is no wonder that his presidency was marked by a series of measures which as a result have influenced the course of American history of the previous century.

Theodore Roosevelt is known as one of the key figures of the Era of Progressivism famous for their great achievements in politics, economics as well as in civil rights. Being a qualified biologist he tried scientific approaches to social problems he had to deal with. He sought for a harmony similar to that which exists in nature.

The policy of the Square Deal is viewed as the most famous and successful Theodore Roosevelt’s brainchild. The Square Deal included three basic components: control of trusts (trust-busting), consumer protection, and conservation of natural resources (conservationism)¹.

To reduce the power and influence of trusts which succeeded to had gaining control over two-fifths of American industrial output, Roosevelt nicknamed the Trust-Buster did his best to increase the federal authorities’ power. A series of such regulatory acts as the 1903 Elkins Act and 1906 Hepburn Act helped much to split monopolies into dozens of smaller competing with each other.

This notwithstanding the Trust-Buster was not persistent enough about such matters as civil rights. He was the first President to have invited an African –American (Booker T. Washington) at eh white House to dinner however after the media outcry he became reluctant to make any further advancements concerning African-American civil rights. Nevertheless, Roosevelt consistently defied anti-Semitism. He was the first American President who appointed a Jew to the federal government.

Woodrow Wilson is known as another key figure of American Progressivism. This President has made considerable advancements in American legislation including improvements in anti-trust legislation. According to the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act² some business practices were made illegal. These were regulations forbidding retailers to handle other companies’ goods, price discrimination; directorates were forbidden to manage other companies. Furthermore, the new Wilsonian legislation imposed personal responsibilities upon individual officers of companies for violating anti-trust laws.

Likewise, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson was not persistent in their Progressivist policies. In 1916 he had Keating–Owen Act pushed through Congress. Although this Act supposed child labor to be curtailed to offer children more opportunities for learning at school, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus child labor remained legal until 1930.

Despite his efforts to keep American neutrality in World War I the United States was compelled to enter this war. America’s entering war inevitably led to the reduction of civil rights as well as to food shortages.

Although America shared the victory in World War I the War To end ALL Wars it was not that victory to crown American Progressive Era. It ended with the implementation of Prohibition. However implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which mandated outlawing the sale, distribution, and manufacturing of alcohol nationally followed by lots of drastic consequences it resulted in decreasing in hard drinks consumption within the period.

The advent of Progressivism was caused by the rapidly increasing role of vast popular masses in industrial production and social life. The increasing gap between the rich and the poor made could have inevitably led to the popular outbreak. Despite all the shortcomings and defects measures and activities related to the Progressive Era and thus Roosevelt’s and Wilson’s cadences contributed much to the present-day America’s power and might.

Bibliography

Brands, H. W. T. R.: The Last Romantic. (New York: Basic Books, 1997).

Ramírez, Carlos D.; Eigen-Zucchi, Christian. Understanding the Clayton Act of 1914: An.

Analysis of the Interest Group Hypothesis”. Public Choice 106 (1-2).

Footnotes

1. Brands, H. W. T. R.: The Last Romantic. (New York: Basic Books,1997).
2. Ramírez, Carlos D.; Eigen-Zucchi, Christian. Understanding the Clayton Act of 1914: An Analysis of the Interest Group Hypothesis”. Public Choice 106 (1-2).

The Progressive Era: 1896–1932

Beginning in 1896, the Progressive Era’s main internal concerns shifted to include government regulation of large enterprises and the demand for new banking systems. The Republican Party continued to garner plurality as the interest groups and voting blocs remained unaffected (Cohen et al., 2009). Since candidates were not allowed to interact directly with the general public at that time, they mobilized local supporters to organize rallies as part of the candidates’ campaign style. The rallies were conducted in taverns and other public places to reach a wider audience.

Most candidates used partisan tabloids (print media) to push their notions. Therefore, the latter had to openly skew news coverage to promote allies and castigate adversaries. The number of citizens who were eligible to vote increased by 38.3 million from 1920 to 1932, rising from 18.4 million to 56.7 million (Cohen et al., 2009). More than 67% of this increase stemmed from voters of Hispanic, Black, Asian, and other minority racial or ethnic backgrounds. A breakdown of the remaining three eras, how congressional candidates can capitalize on campaign laws, the primary factors in a congressional campaign, and the role of media in driving the public’s understanding of candidates for office form the basis of this paper.

Fifth Party System: 1932–1976

The Great Depression (1929–1939), which triggered unprecedented business cycles and the New Deal initiatives (1933–1939)-which were the Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to it marked the turning point in American politics (Cohen et al., 2009). With the Democrats in charge of both congressional houses from the 1930s and holding the presidency until 1952, liberalism ideology prevailed. During this time, the candidates used the Husting method as a style of campaign whereby they would address their electorates and politically engage in debates to defend their manifestos. It is the era when the elephant as a symbol of the Republicans and the donkey for the Democrats were made famous by cartoonist Thomas Nast.

His cartoons, along with those of his forebears and contemporaries, were printed as single-sheet prints and in newspapers (print media). They are credited with having a significant impact on many voters at that time. On the other hand, only an average of 34% of registered voters (about two-thirds) held a college degree (Cohen et al., 2009). However, since 1950, when only 20% of voters had this degree, the proportion rose significantly throughout the era.

Era of Divided Government: 1968-2008

The regime was typified by an alternation between the Democrats and the Republicans in the Presidential elections while the opposition party frequently maintained control of Congress. The Vietnam War and the Watergate Scandal serve as examples of how the existence of a divided government challenged the decision-making process. In the early 1960s, there was a significant cultural shift that led to a realignment of political parties (Cohen et al., 2009).

The common style of campaign and use of musical media was evidenced by campaign songs which were written about candidates and could fit right into a culture where singing was popular. For instance, the song ‘Do Not Stop’ was sung to popularize Bill Clinton in 1992 (Sides & Haselswerdt, 2019). This epoch was further characterized by an ageing electorate whereby 58% of registered voters were ages 49 and older, up from 46% in 1996. As of 1990, ages 49 and older constituted 56% of Republican and GOP-leaning voters, an increase approximated at 37% (Sides & Haselswerdt, 2019).

The Future (2008 to Present)

With President Obama taking office as the 44th president of the United States in 2009-2017, the 2008 elections signified the beginning of a new era (Sides & Haselswerdt, 2019). There was one government, and the Democratic Party controlled both the Congress and the presidency. Trump assumed office in 2017 and was ousted by Joe Biden in 2021. In this period, the use of the Internet and media platforms has become a preferred style of conducting campaigns.

Communication media avenues like websites and podcasts are used by candidates to facilitate the faster transmission of messages to sizable voters. Similarly, the era rekindled interest in how demographic changes have altered the composition of the electorate. For instance, between 2000 and 2018, the percentage of non-Hispanic White eligible voters plummeted in 50 states, with double-digit declines occurring in 10 of those states (Sides et al., 2022)

Congressional Candidates and Campaign Finance Laws

Campaign finance laws define limitations on donations and expenditures for candidates running for different offices. Therefore, as a consultant to a candidate running for Congress, I would advise them to ensure that campaign finance laws such as BCRA and the Federal Campaign Act of 1971 are completely observed by their contestants. The FCA forbids businesses and trade unions from donating funds directly to federal politicians (such as my client) but instead permits corporations to administer and collect voluntary contributions for the organization’s political action committee, an opportunity which I can advise my client to explore to succeed.

Through the restrictions on contributions from national political parties and groups of interest, the 2002 BCRA law reduced the influence of corporate donations (soft money) in political elections (Sides et al., 2022). It mandated that candidates who are vying for federal political offices in the United States and interest groups supporting or opposing them include an identification of the candidate and a statement that indicates his approval of the communication in political advertisements on news media.

BCRA law played a significant role in the rise of independent expenditure committees by eliminating all soft money donations to the national party committees. Additionally, it increased the hard money share contribution cap from $1,500 to $3,000 per election cycle (Sides et al., 2022). On the other hand, the Citizens United decision brought a sharp surge in political expenditure from external entities, further enhancing the already disproportionate political influence of wealthy financiers.

Primary Factors to Consider in Congressional Campaigns

Whereas all congressional aspirants conduct campaigns, only one emerges as the winner after considering several primary factors such as the nature of the campaign message, methods of outsourcing campaign finance, and their relationship with local communities. Firstly, the nature of the campaign message is a key priority. The message should always be geared toward persuading those who share the candidate’s viewpoints to support them in their quest for a particular office. To leave a lasting impression on the voters, the message, which consists of a cluster of talking points about policy issues, should summarize the key elements of the candidate’s manifesto.

Campaign finance is another key factor in congressional campaigns. Sending direct mail pitches to small donors, calling or meeting with large financiers, and wooing the interests of organizations are all appropriate fundraising strategies. In a congressional campaign, strategies like door-to-door canvassing, running digital ads, and volunteer recruitment are used by candidates to achieve political success. For instance, the use of volunteers increases the candidate’s campaign’s visibility and enables him to have personnel on the ground to handle social media posting. In the 2020 Texas congressional elections, Dan Crenshaw amassed an army of 70,000 volunteers (Sides et al., 2022). While his opponents employed professional staff and political advisors, it was the unpaid locals who strengthened Crenshaw’s campaign and propelled him to victory by mobilizing their communities to elect him.

Role of the Media in Driving the Public’s Understanding of Candidates for Office and Their Campaigns

Both the news and social media have indeed had a significant impact on driving the public’s understanding of candidates for office and their campaigns. Firstly, journalists greatly influence elections by deciding which candidates to cover and to what extent. Such decisions may have a significant impact on voters’ perceptions. According to research, some candidates may appear to be almost invisible if they are unable to garner sufficient media attention. This disproportionate level of publicity was highlighted by former president Donald Trump in 2016 (Sides & Haselswerdt, 2019). He accused media houses of contributing to a “rigged” election by predominantly covering Hillary Clinton while the Republicans went unreported.

Secondly, users currently have more direct access to candidates than ever before thanks to social media. Voters may be influenced by platforms such as Facebook to develop a virtual close connection with a candidate they will probably never see in person. Social media give candidates a direct line of communication with voters, thus eliminating the mainstream media as a gatekeeper. Trump’s 2016 campaign made extensive use of social media platforms, especially Twitter, to mobilize voters.

As part of his plan to prioritize media presence over supporters and funds, Trump, unlike other candidates, linked to news outlets rather than his campaign website in his tweets and Facebook posts. The Pew Research Center’s study indicates that 78% of his re-tweets were from the ordinary populace as opposed to journalistic organizations and elected leaders (Sides & Haselswerdt, 2019). Trump’s distinctive usage of social media enabled him to engage with his detractors and tweet about his stances on different political topics.

References

Cohen, M., Karol, D., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2009). The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. University of Chicago Press. Web.

Sides, J., & Haselswerdt, J. (2019). Campaigns and Elections. C.J. Nelson & A.J. Thurber (Eds,), (5^th ed, pp. 297-314). Routledge.

Sides, J., Tausanovitch, C., & Vavreck, L. (2022). The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Princeton University Press. Web.

The Port Huron Statement is the political and idealistic manifesto of the student activist movement Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). It was written in 1962 by members of the SDS, whose main backbone was the students of the University of Michigan. The manifesto was written in historically difficult times for the United States, which fell on the aggravation of relations with the USSR, the beginning of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the development of crisis trends in the economy. The purpose of The Port Huron Statement was to draw public attention to the state of the American political system, which was unable to achieve social justice, economic prosperity, and peace in the foreign policy arena.

The manifesto has a critical form, although it also contains framework proposals for social and political changes. The students paid attention to the most important aspects of American politics, pointing out that they are forced into activism because of the state of affairs that the politicians of previous generations led to. First, the two-party political system has ceased to be a mechanism for change and the collective adoption of new decisions. The SDS students believed that a more left-wing party was needed, as well as a series of political reforms to achieve participatory democracy. Second, the manifesto criticized economic inequality, big business dominance, and workers’ oppression. The new economic principles offered a transition to new incentives for work and production and the openness of primary resources and means of production. Third, the manifesto criticized social and racial inequality. Fourth, much attention was paid to criticism of US foreign policy, leading to wars and escalation in the Cold War.

The Port Huron Statement is a romantic text, so many student suggestions and criticisms seem quite naive and out of touch with reality. At the same time, the manifesto has not lost its significance due to high ideals and aspirations, and most importantly, since representatives of universities correctly identified the most complex and most acute problems of the modern world back in the 60s. American society has already entered the era of the galloping development of consumerism and social conformity. This only exacerbated social problems, economic inequality, and manifestations of racism. The younger generation was especially worried about issues of a global scale – a possible nuclear war, which hung like a sword of Damocles over the world. Therefore, Port Huron’s statement voiced the ideas and philosophy of pursuing a policy of social change based on new approaches in politics, economics, and social and cultural spheres.

In my opinion, The Port Huron Statement resonates with young people in today’s world. We also feel anger at getting the country in such an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The modern generation will be forced to face the problems of the state and global scale – attacks on American democracy, economic crises, social inequality and racism, the health care system crisis, and global climate change. As unrealistic as the 1962 manifesto was, it is just as relevant today because the old methods did not solve almost all of the problems listed. More than half a century ago, students in America demanded a new approach and ways of creating collective solutions that would consider all people’s interests. However, this was not fully implemented, the changes introduced by the government were half-hearted, and the results horrified the new generation nowadays.

Theodore Roosevelt during his tenure as the president of the United States promulgated reforms which were termed “Progressive Policies”. The major issues of concern that were addressed in these policies are political and social matters which undermined the development of business and transport sectors in the nation (Kathleen 371). Strategically, the reforms implemented the use of social science, technology, and engineering to enhance modernization, industrial revolution and promotion of human rights through the constitution in the United States.

Moreover, progressive policies sought to remedy the problems linked to the embezzlement of public finances through corruption and inefficient flow resources (Kathleen 371). This paper, therefore, seeks to unveil the progressive policies which were championed by Theodore Roosevelt immediately after his presidential term. Discussed in detail are the cause of action that he took, the type of coalitions he formed, where his actions led and how the 1912 election centralized progressive policies in the national debate.

Pure democracy was one of the policies advocated for by Theodore Roosevelt immediately after his term of presidency. During his reign in the United States, Roosevelt established a sense of democracy by expanding the executive branch of the government, to ensure that peoples’ voices are accurately represented by the elected individuals in both the state and the federal governments (Kathleen 374). By centralizing power in the federal government, he diminished the chances of misrepresentation by municipal governments and ensured close monitory of the United States affairs to the fulfillment of the will of the people.

After his term, President Wilson took over and through him, progressivism was kept alive in the United States by expanding executive arms of the government and freedom of expression being granted to the citizens. People were granted the power to exercise their democratic rights by ejecting poor leaders from the government and amending the constitution through a referendum. The government also took the responsibility of monitoring business operations within the country to aid transparency in all operations including transport means.

Eventually, the Federal Trade Commission was created in 1915 which ensured pure democracy needed in government businesses (Kathleen 375). Moreover, the Federal Reserve Act was promulgated, leading to the full influence of progressive policies, even though the party was not influential at that time.

Roosevelt also championed for the reliance on people’s opinions through the constitution in the United States. The reforms which were established by Roosevelt ensured a close monitory of the judicial system at the federal level and mandated people at the lowest level to exercise justice deserved even upon their representatives. By so doing, the Progressive Policies unified opinions within the government with the ideas of the people leading to harmonization of business activities operation of business activities as planned from the government down to the people in localized areas. As a result, the republican democracy, in which the government was making citizens its subjects, was eliminated since it never facilitated the achievements of peoples’ expectations.

Consequently, pure democracy was achieved since the voice of the people was directly implemented through the constitution. It was not until the 1912 election that even the idea of sobriety in the constitution by James Madison was overturned by Progressive Policies’ reform (Kathleen 382). Therefore, it is evident that Theodore Roosevelt promoted democracy to the lowest level that has ever been accomplished in history.

Theodore Roosevelt took up the cause of national transformation to facilitate democracy and the industrial revolution in the United States. It was through the Progressive party that the political system in the United States was enforced to change from a localized democracy to more than two parties eyeing for power. By declaring political war for the best of the nation, Roosevelt enhanced a system of democracy where people’s opinions can be fulfilled (Kathleen 377). As a consequence his advocacy for the new electoral reforms, many people saw the sense and adopted the ideas in various counties within the United States (Kathleen 378). His campaigns for the new reforms aided his popularity and brought to the people’s sense of how important their votes count for their well-being in life.

Theodore Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party of the United States by 1912 after splitting from the Republican Party to keep the mission of progressive policy a national agenda. Through the Progressive Party, the United States citizens were enlightened on matters of democracy and human rights leading to their high preference for the progressive policies candidates for the presidency. The party was composed of delegates from different states and was able to implement the constitutional rights of citizens through the progressive movement reform program of Governor Woodrow Wilson (Kathleen 387). The primary campaigns led to seizing of the stronghold seats of the Republican Party and the representatives joined together as a team campaigning for national transformation.

The election of 1912 brought Progressivism to the center United States national debate since it marked the point of transformation from a decentralized system of government. The top two candidates of that time belonged to the Progressive Policies democratic movement. More importantly, it was at that point when the bill of human rights and democracy was brought to the conscience of all citizens. Thus, it marked a transformation from a state of unawareness into the centralized implementation of the constitutional rights of all citizens (Kathleen 405). It is, therefore, clear that Theodore Roosevelt virtually won the 1912 elections of the United States since his policies are still alive today.

Work Cited

Kathleen, Dalton. Theodore Roosevelt: A Streneous Life. Vintage, 2004.

Throughout his presidency, George W Bush has helped a lot in the progress of the U.S. Although often criticized, his presidency has done a lot in making the world a better place for everyone. Yes, not only the United States, but he has also helped the world with some of his actions. His controversial presidency has received both the highest domestic approval along the lowest domestic approval. After the September 11 2001 attack on the World Trade Center by al Qaeda Muslims and his brisk moves to reinforce homeland security, he had an approval rating of around 90 percent. By mid-2007, however, his approval rating went down to 20 percent. His presidency has definitely had its ups and downs with many controversial policies and actions he has made part of the legacy of his presidency for good or ill. The programs and laws that have been passed during the Bush regime can be considered as good or bad depending on one’s point of view. Like his predecessors, Bush has had to deal with both domestic and international problems. Another reason why the Bush presidency is full of controversy is that the majority of the Senate and Congress are Democrats. The difference in beliefs is what drives the conflicts in many decision-making processes along with the passing of laws.

One of the greatest achievements of the Bush administration is the “war against terrorism”. With the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the people were all but ready to nuke the Middle East in retaliation. In response to the attack, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq prior to the approval of the United Nations. This act of Bush, though considered heroic by people at the time, turns out to have been ill-advised because there was no proper justification for it.

The reason given for the invasion was supposedly the disarming of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) of Iraq and saving the people of Iraq from a sinister dictator. Years after the invasion was won, no one could find any trace of the claimed WMDs, except perhaps for the poison gas plants which the world had known about when Saddam gassed the Kurdish minority. As the occupation lengthened with no end in sight, Iraqi militias fighting each other and blowing up any civilians they wanted to, and U.S. military deaths reaching 4,000 at last count, the invasion of Iraq was criticized as the son finishing what the father had failed to do in 1990: get rid of Saddam once and for all to dispel the threat he posed to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East. Perhaps it would have been better if George W. Bush had waited for UN sanction or given Congress and the American people a more truthful rationale for going into Iraq. After all, great leaders often have to rally their people to do what is necessary in times of crisis.

Although highly criticized, the “war on terror” has done some good. Certainly, Bush sent a country that supported terrorists down to its knees, thus setting an example for other countries to close their doors on terrorist gangs.

One of the more infamous of all of Bush’s proposals was the tax cut of 2001. He offered the tax cut that eventually cost the country 1.35 trillion dollars. While such an executive order may have benefited millions of individuals who found themselves with a “windfall,” such a huge amount taken from the U.S. treasury threw the country’s budget into a 434 billion dollar deficit from an 84 billion dollar surplus the year before. In hindsight, it might have been preferable to use some other fiscal tool to stimulate the economy. This could perhaps have taken the form of incentives to U.S. companies to invest, lowering interests so that those companies that financed their expansions might bear lower costs, even imposing tariff barriers on imports from, say, China, so that the continuing hemorrhage of American jobs could be stanched. Instead, the recession lingered on for years and increased the National Debt.

One of the most highly debatable programs of the Bush administration is the No Child Left Behind Act or the NCLB. This program increases the accountability of the State by heightening the educational standards of public schools. This act requires local governments to assess the basic skills of every student. The policy aimed to enforce better teaching standards to solve a problem that had been going on for a long time, the continuing erosion in the academic skills of American students. To enforce compliance, the government used a “stick” instead of a “carrot”: Federal aid would be cut for public schools that failed to bring each cohort of students up to standard.

The flaw in NLCB was that it did not impose a common screening test. If a standardized national test for every year and grade level had been formulated, one would have avoided such misdemeanors as certain districts in Georgia and Arkansas deliberately making their tests easy to pass.

The aforementioned acts and programs are just some of the more prominent ones. This selection is by no means complete but they are enough to show both the benefits and the inadequacies of the Bush administration. He is far from perfect as a President. It may be his lack of attention to the domestic economy of the U.S., it may be his obsession with the war against terror, or it could be just plain ornery dissension in the ranks of Congress and the Senate. Whatever it might be, future historians will debate the positive actions and sins of omissions of President Bush’s administration at this critical juncture in America’s history.

Introduction

It is well stated that many public documents, such as President Herbert Hoover and members of the Federal Reserve System in the second half of the 1920s, were aiming at ending what they recognized to be the approximate overloads that were lashing the stock market explosion. Furthermore, as clarified by Hamilton (1987), notwithstanding plentiful contradictions to the divergent, the Federal Reserve assumed the role of “authority of security prices.”

Nevertheless, there continue to be quarrels as to whether or not the stock market was overestimated at the time; the main accents is that the Federal Reserve suggested there to be a tentative effervesce in equity charges. Hamilton describes how the Federal Reserve, aiming to “pop” the bubble, boarded on a highly contractionary monetary strategy in January 1928. Between December 1927 and July 1928, the Federal Reserve mannered $393 million of open market vends of securities so that only $80 million stayed in the Open Market account.

Buying rates on bankers’ receptions were increased from 3 percent in January 1928 to 4.5 percent by July, decreasing Federal Reserve investments of such bills by $193 million, imposing a total of only $185 million of these bills on equilibrium. Further, the concession rate was raised from 3.5 percent to 5 percent, the highest level since the recession of 1920–21. “In short, in terms of the magnitudes consciously controlled by the Fed, it would be difficult to design more contractionary regulations than that started in January 1928”. (Himmelberg, 2001)

Strongest School of Thought

The Austrian school of thought is regarded to be the most truthful in the matters of the Great Depression, as The economics profession during the 1930s was at a loss to clarify the Depression. The most important conservative explanations were of two categories. First, some spectators at the time firmly based their clarifications on the two columns of traditional macroeconomic thought, Say’s Law, and the suggestion in the self-equilibrating forces of the market.

Lots argued that it was just a matter of time before salaries and charges adjusted fully enough for the financial system to return to full service and get the consciousness of the putative axiom that “supply provides its own demand.” Second, the Austrian school of thought stated that the Depression was the inevitable result of overinvestment during the 1920s. The best remedy for the situation was to let the Depression run its course so that the economy could be purified from the harmful effects of the false increase. Government intervention was regarded by the Austrian school as a mechanism that would simply extend the agony and make any succeeding depression worse than it would generally be. (Burkett, 1994)

FDR’s Best Elements

In his 1933 inaugural address, Roosevelt stated: “Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional structure has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world contacts.” Yet, at the same time, he was ready to recommend calculates that he knew could succeed only with strong public heaviness in support of surprising federal powers to manage “extraordinary needs.”

The first document attributed to the article is the speech provided on Inauguration Day in March 1933. It is predominantly memorable for its attack on the psychology of the Great Depression. Less outstanding but more continuing is the explanation that Roosevelt aimed to use to enlarge the power of the federal management to attain his legislative objectives and thus ease the consequences of the Great Depression.

Woven by means of his inaugural address was his plan. He aimed to announce war on the Great Depression and required all the managerial freedom probable in order to wage that war. For in totaling to his famous report, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he also stated, “I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining tool to meet the disaster – broad Executive force to wage war against the disaster, as great as the power that would be offered to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” (McGovern, 2000)

The board has no temperament to presuppose authority to interfere with the loan practices of member banks so long as they do not involve the Federal reserve banks. It has, however, a grave responsibility whenever there is evidence that member banks are maintaining speculative security loans with the aid of Federal reserve credit. When such is the case, the Federal reserve bank turns to be either a causative or a sustaining feature in the current volume of approximate safety credit. This is not in agreement with the intention of the Federal Reserve Act, nor is it favorable to the nutritious operation of the banking and credit structure of the state.

The deflationary heaviness to stock prices had been used. It was now a matter of when the market would break. Although the consequences were not instantaneous, the wait was not long.

Roosevelt also reformed the American presidency. Through his “fireside chats,” carried to an audience via the new technology of radio, Roosevelt built a connection between himself and the citizens – doing much to form the image of the President as the caretaker of the American citizens. Under FDR’s control, the President’s duties grew to include not only those of the leader managerial – as an implementer of regulations – but also central congressperson – as the drafter of regulation strategy.

And in attempting to create and craft legislation, Roosevelt required White House workers and a set of consultants unlike any regarded beforehand in Washington. The President now required a full-time staff devoted to domestic and foreign policies, with proficiency in this sphere and a passion for authority. With performing of the Executive Reorganization bill in 1939, Roosevelt changed the form of the White House forever. Overall, President Roosevelt seriously enlarged the responsibilities of his organization. Fortunately for his descendants, he also improved the capability of the administration to meet these new responsibilities.

FDR’s Worst Elements

In January 1928, the kernels of the Great Depression, at whatever time they were planted, started germinating. For it is approximately this time that two of the most important clarification for the deepness, length and international spread of the Depression first came to be apparent. Without any hesitation, the economics vocation would come to a firm agreement around the notion that the financial happenings of the Great Depression cannot be correctly realized without a firm connection to both the performance of the provision of money together with Federal Reserve exploits on the one hand and the faulted system of the interwar gold standard on the other. (Burkett, 1994)

The death of Federal Reserve Bank President Benjamin Strong and the succeeding regulation of policy credited to Adolph Miller of the Federal Reserve Board assured that the fall in the stock market was going to be created an actuality. Miller believed the approximate excesses of the stock market were injuring the economy, and the Federal Reserve went on attempting to put an end to this distinguished harm. The quantity of Federal Reserve credit that was being extended to market contributors in the form of broker loans turned to be a matter in 1929. The Federal Reserve adamantly depressed lending that was collateralized by parities. The intentions of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve were created clear in a letter dated February 2, 1929, sent to Federal Reserve reservoirs.

Impact Today

At the after-school job, people probably earn at least the bare minimum salary of $5.85 an hour. Older people may get a Social Security to ensure every month. And if someone works late, there is a good chance to get paid overtime.

The minimum wage, Social Safety, and overtime pay are just three of the countless features of American life today that is mostly the achievement of a single President: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who became the president 75 years ago, in March 1933. (Murray, 2005)

During his 12 years in the White House – a period that entailed the Great Depression and World War II FDR transformed the function of the government in business and the financial system, and by extension, in the lives of all American citizens.

Conclusion

The U.S. economy grew quickly during Roosevelt’s term. Nevertheless, coming out of the Depression, this growth was assisted by continuing great extents of joblessness, as the medium unemployment rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Right through his entire term, entailing the war years, regular joblessness was 13%. Total employment during Roosevelt’s term enlarged by 18.31 million jobs, with an average annual, augment in jobs during his administration of 5.3%.

Roosevelt did not increase income taxes before World War II started; nevertheless, payroll taxes were also initiated to fund the new Social Security plan in 1937. He also got Congress to spend more on lots of different programs and developments never before seen in American history. Nevertheless, under the revenue pressures brought on by the Depression, most states added or increased taxes, entailing sales as well as returns taxes.

Roosevelt’s offering for new taxes on commercial savings was highly notorious in 1936–37 and was declined by Congress. During the war, he pushed for even higher income tax rates for persons and companies and a cap on high salaries for managers. In order to fund the war, Congress broadened the base so that almost every employee paid federal income taxes and introduced withholding taxes in 1943.

References

Bernanke, B. S. (1995). The Macroeconomics of the Great Depression: A Comparative Approach. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 27(1), 1.

Burkett, P. (1994). Forgetting the Lessons of the Great Depression. Review of Social Economy, 52(1), 60.

Himmelberg, R. F. (2001). The Great Depression and the New Deal. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

McGovern, J. R. (2000). And a Time for Hope: Americans in the Great Depression. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Murray, J. E. (2005). Rethinking the Great Depression: A New View of Its Causes and Consequences. Review of Social Economy, 63(2), 305.

Stock, C. M. (1992). Main Street in Crisis: The Great Depression and the Old Middle Class on the Northern Plains. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.