Category: American politics

The speech is delivered by former US president George W. Bush on the crisis in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. It used the regular speech structure of introduction, body, and conclusion without metaphor or jargon. Its main arguments, underlying concepts, or primary thesis were all complicated rhetorical devices. The speechs primary rhetorical (and political) objective was to outline American policy. The president listed several options, ranking the mobilization of American forces as the most crucial. By defining the four guiding principles of American policy, the second goaljustifying American actionswas substantially (rhetorically) achieved. Finally, the American audience was explicitly mentioned and addressed for the third goal, a request for assistance.

In his preparation for the United Nations audience, the ex-president Bush seems to have used three tools of persuasion as Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. An audience must accept the speaker before they can persuade them to believe anything they have to say. First, Bush promotes Ethos in his speech by using clear and precise vocabulary without adding any jargon that would complicate the speech. His choice of simple and formal language makes him look honest and credible. Second, he uses Pathos, an attempt to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotions. The speaker must evoke an emotion in his or her audience to move them to action while using Pathos to persuade them. For instance, Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. The given passage embodies a successful usage of the appeal to emotions. By stating our principles and our security, Bush can make the audience feel that the speaker relates to them, which facilitates his speech to be accepted by the audience easier.

Next, Bush uses Logos to persuade his audience using reason and logic. Compelling arguments should provide evidence to support the speakers claims or opinions. He states: We created a United Nations Security Council so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. In this statement, he uses facts, logical reasoning, recorded proof, and historical information in order to prove his point.

Several times during his speech, Bush conducted both demographic and situational analyses. First, by noting, Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, he shows that the audience constitutes representatives of different nations worldwide. Further, according to situational analysis, the audience is gathered to hear the then-presidents speech on occasion in the Persian Gulf, which relates not only to the Middle East region but to elsewhere as well. Moreover, the audience is motivated to come for a common goal as the speaker mentions, & to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As I believe the given speech illustrates one of the most influential and quality speeches ever delivered, I would prefer to incorporate similar audience adaptations in my speech. Therefore, I can apply Ethos, Pathos, and Logos per the topic of the speech and concrete audience. In other words, there should be a connection between me and my audience, where the audience can make sense of my sound arguments. Lastly, I can make my speech more effective by appealing to emotions and calling to action.

Reference

Eidenmuller, M. E. (2002). George W. Bush Second Address to the United Nations General Assembly. George W. Bush: Speech in 2002 to the United Nations General Assembly (transcript-audio-video). Web.

Introduction

After President Bill Clinton got involved in a love affair with Lewinsky, people had mixed reactions about the affair. At the time of the scandal, Lewinsky worked as an intern in the White House. Her perceived friend at the time, Tripp, had been recording phone conversations between Clinton and her. It later emerged that the two had an affair, which led to a court suit and later prompted the President to be impeached. Although at first, Clinton denied the charges, he later admitted that he was involved in an affair with Lewinsky and made a public apology.

Discussion

Lewinskys scandal attracted a lot of attention since it involved an intern in the White House and a sitting president. Another factor that made the scandal attract many opinions from the public was the fact that the president was a married man (Pierce, Byrne, & Aguinis, 1996). The scandal involved morality and ethics, and this paper will discuss three principals of ethics held by different people in relation to the scandal.

One famous ethicist was Kant. Born in 1724 in Germany, Kant became a formidable philosopher. He came up with the Kantian Ethics theory, which states that; one should do well as an obligatory duty or responsibility, instead of relying on the end goal, or any emotions attached to the act. Kant believed that one performed an action based on obligations.

Utilitarianism seems to disregard the importance of moral elements like individual rights, human dignity, and the protection of minority views. According to utilitarian theory, all things are converted to happiness or pleasure, and this gives leeway for maximizing overall happiness. The theory is much concerned with the happiness of the greater majority and tends to neglect the views of the minority, who also deserve to be respected. According to this theory, any action is regarded as a right if it results in the happiness of the majority in society.

Non-consequentiality theory evaluates whether an action is right or wrong. This is based on properties that are fundamental to the action, but not on the consequences. Contractarianism and libertarianism are good examples of the theory. Contractarianism dictates that any action that may cause harm and whose value may be considered uncompensated should not be allowed. On the other hand, libertarianism suggests that people should be given the freedom to do what they feel is right.

These theories are different and, therefore, are differently used in explaining Lewinskys scandal. If Kant handled the case, he would have used his ethical theory to assess the situation, as well as the repercussions emanating from the actions. Since his theory is based on what one is supposed to do irrespective of the consequences, it would have been an enthralling case to handle. As long as one is led into doing good by a certain obligation, the said action should be performed irrespective of the consequences (Shaw, 2010, p. 63). There has to be a duty to do right, which should be implemented. It is thus probable that Kants theory would not have been sufficient for the case. This is because it does not show the presence of an obligatory duty for Lewinskys actions. She was at liberty of doing the right thing even if it caused unhappiness to Clinton. She knew that Clinton was a married man, yet she continued with the affair.. According to Kants ethical theory, she was wrong with her actions.

If, on the other hand, Kants ethical theory is used to assess the case, Clinton was wrong. This is because; there was no obligatory duty driving Clinton to get involved in an affair with Lewinsky. He never upheld ethics in the workplace (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994).

Kants theory states that; a person is compelled to do right because it is an obligation. Clinton did not have to betray his wife. This was what was supposed to be done, even if those actions could have hurt Lewinsky. Another reason that could have found Clinton guilty of Kants theory is the fact that Clinton lied. According to Kants theory, telling a lie is highly prohibited, irrespective of the circumstances. When Clinton was answering against charges of the affair, he denied the fact that he had a relationship with Lewinsky. This is despite the fact that there were tapped phone calls of his conversation with Lewinsky. Only much later did Clinton come to admit about the affair and gave a public apology. Kants theory is absolute on lying, and Clinton had gone against the theory. He had broken the law, and Kant would have found him guilty. Kant proceeds to explain what makes an act right. If an act can be used as a universal law, then it is right (Shaw, 2010, p. 62). Not all people could accept the scandal by Lewinsky as a normal happening in the universe. This is because the act was between a young employee and a married man. Universal law has to be accepted by everybody, and if not, then it is not right. Revisiting the scandal, not everybody would like her husband to be involved in an affair with another woman, whether young or old. Since not everybody would like such a scenario, the actions were not right. For this reason, therefore, according to Kants ethical theory, the relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton was morally wrong.

Utilitarianism theory seems to disregard the views of other people and concentrates on the happiness of the majority (Shaw, 2010, p. 57). This means that ones actions, which can pass the test of ethics, have to result to the happiness of a larger group of people. On the contrary, the result should not be celebrated by the individuals performing the action but should be of immense benefit to a larger mass. By trying to define utilitarianism, the theorys founders, Mill and Bentham, argued that the ultimate goal of utilitarianism was to produce or elevate happiness. If the result of an act did not increase the larger majoritys happiness, that action was not to be encouraged. Another explanation from the ethicists was that if an act brought happiness for one party while causing pain to another party, the act did not qualify to be utilitarian.

Lewinskys actions were not meant to add joy or happiness to the great public. On the contrary, her actions brought joy to herself and not to a greater population. The results of her actions with Clinton brought much pain, especially to the family members of Clinton. Having to hear all that was happening in the affair brought pain to the family members. This is contrary to utilitarian ethics, which call for, the joy of the greater multitude. Therefore, going by utilitarian theory, Lewinsky and Clintons actions were contrary to the expectations of the theory, since they were the beneficiaries of their actions.

Non-consequentialist theory states that the nature of an action dictates its morality and not the consequences. There are two branches of non-consequential theory, namely; contractarianism and libertarianism. Having the scandal in mind and going by the main definition of a non-consequential theory, Lewinskys relationship scandal was contrary to the theory. The theory is much concerned with the inherent properties of the act itself and not the consequences. The act itself was wrong as it involved an affair between a young woman and a married man, who was expected to uphold high moral standards as a leader. Non-consequentialist theory takes into consideration the inherent factors of the action (Shaw, 2010, p. 49). The mere act of having an affair was morally wrong, irrespective of the additional consequences.

Conclusion

The case against Lewinsky attracted a lot of attention from the media and the public at large. This was because the scandal involved a sitting president. The scandal became a discussion in the country as it meant that the president was going to face impeachment. There was need to uphold ethics in the workplace irrespective of the situation (Wempe, 2008). The scandal led to ethical issues especially on the willingness of leaders to uphold work place ethics. Upholding ethics is a prerequisite in any department in the work place and it is, therefore, shocking to witness the highest office in the land going against ethical values that the citizens are supposed to uphold.

References

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 252-284.

Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996). Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17, 5-32.

Shaw, W. H. (2010). Business Ethics: A textbook with cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Wempe, B. (2008). Contraction Business Ethics: Credentials and Design Criteria. Organization Studies 29 (10), 1337-1355.

Introduction

What has helped Michelle Obama, the former first lady, achieve a great level of success in public speaking? It is important to note that, currently, she can be viewed as a role model and a source of inspiration for every student and any African American woman in the United States. The focus should also be on the fact that ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical strategies that were actively used by Mrs. Obama in her commencement speech that she gave at Spelman College in 2011. These approaches need to be discussed in detail in order to explain how the speaker can attract the publics attention and cause certain emotions in the audience or effectively persuade listeners. Thus, in her motivational graduation speech, Michelle Obama used the three modes of persuasion, such as ethos, pathos, and logos, in order to convey her main message and evoke the most positive and uplifting feelings in listeners.

Ethos in the Commencement Speech

As one of three rhetorical strategies used for persuasion, ethos means the appeal to the credibility of a speaker or his or her character. Ethos is defined by Hall as an ethical proof based on the demonstration through the speech of the rhetors goodness, goodwill, and moral uprightness, all of which enhance the persuasiveness and perceived truth of the message (qtd. in Alkhirbash 112). In her speech, Mrs. Obama appealed to her own experience and credibility as an African American woman who was oriented not only toward obtaining a good education but also to serving community needs. For example, referring to the experience of Spelman students, the speaker accentuated her own experience and will. Thus, she said, &I am no exception. I mean, some of you may have grown up like me, in neighborhoods where few had the chance to go to college& (Michelle Obama Speech). This one and other references to her own experience and views add credibility to her words, she becomes perceived as a person who possesses high moral virtues and shows goodwill toward the audience.

Pathos in the Speech

Another rhetoric approach is pathos, which is associated with the emotional appeal and provoking certain emotions in the audience. Thus, pathos is defined as an appeal to the audiences sense of identity, self-interest, and emotions (Wang 107). Michelle Obama actively used pathos in the commencement speech because her key message was that Spelman graduates needed not only to develop their personalities but also help others. It was necessary to motivate students to take actions appealing to their emotions. Their mission is to lead, assist, and inspire other people to receive education and reach their goals. To attract attention to this idea and provoke emotions, Mrs. Obama told the inspiring stories of other Spelman graduates, Marian Wright Edelman and Janet Bragg, who overcame many challenges on paths to education and career. Then, the speaker accentuated the emotional words about the role of Spelman education: With a Spelman education, you all have everything you need, right here and right now, to be everything youve ever wanted to be (Michelle Obama Speech). These approaches helped Mrs. Obama create a certain emotional atmosphere and make students excited because of the speakers words.

Logos as an Approach

The third rhetoric strategy that was used by Michelle Obama in her speech is logos. Logos is defined by Lunsford as appeals to reason of the message itself with all facts reflecting and affecting the universe (qtd. in Alkhirbash 113). In speeches, logos is associated with providing evidence and statistics or examples to support and illustrate arguments (Zhang and Clark 22). Developing the idea of the importance of obtaining the education at Spelman college, the speaker referred to historical examples as the proof for her statements. Thus, Mrs. Obama mentioned Sophia Packard, Harriet Giles, and Father Quarles and focused on their stories and contribution to the development of education for African American female students (Michelle Obama Speech). It was important for the speaker to accentuate the role of supporting others while referring to the actions of such personalities as Miss Giles, Miss Packard, Father Quarles, who changed the sphere of education for minorities.

Conclusion

In the commencement speech at Spelman College, Michelle Obama was able to convince the audience to accept her vision of the students mission because of applying three modes of persuasion. Ethos, pathos, and logos were effectively used by the speaker to motivate graduates and provoke certain feelings and thoughts in them in order to reconsider their experience as students of Spelman College. It is possible to state that this speech makes listeners feel excited and inspired to follow Mrs. Obamas words and develop not only their own career but also focus on others and help them succeed. The speech is logically organized, and there are no components that need improvement. On the one hand, the introductory part seems to be too long, but on the other hand, it serves for involving listeners emotionally, and it reasonably leads to the main idea of the speech. All these details along with the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos make the speech rather effective and motivational.

Works Cited

Al Khirbash, Abdulrahman. A Proposed Framework for Analyzing Aristotles Three Modes of Persuasion. International Journal of English and Education, vol. 5, no. 4, 2016, pp. 111-117.

Michelle Obama Speech at Spelmans 2011 Commencement. YouTube, uploaded by Spelman College, Web.

Wang, Lin. Three Modes of Rhetorical Persuasion. Sino-US English Teaching, vol. 16, no. 3, 2019, pp. 106-112.

Zhang, Lei, and Carlton Clark, editors. Affect, Emotion, and Rhetorical Persuasion in Mass Communication. Routledge, 2018.

Introduction

Geronimo or Neptunes Spear is an operation authorized by Barack Obama and carried out on May 2, 2011, by a particular unit of DEVGRU to eliminate Osama bin Ladens al-Qaeda terrorist organization. After that, Barack Obama delivered a speech that caused an international outcry. Most approved of the results of Operation Neptune Spear, but some condemned it. On May 6, al-Qaeda confirmed bin Ladens death. The analysis of the basics of law has proved that Obama had the legal authority to carry out this operation.

Legislation Aspects

There are three aspects in which this operation by Barack Obama is more justified from different points of view than not. First, al-Qaeda, led by bin Laden, had carried out about two dozen brutal terrorist attacks by that time, which had led to the death of many civilians and military personnel who countered them (Byman & Mir, 2022). Secondly, from an emotional point of view, this terrorist group did not receive a proper response after the September 9 tragedy, which caused public unrest for a long time. Finally, intelligence had evidence that bin Laden was planning a powerful new attack ten years after 9/11, and steps had to be taken to prevent it (Pfarrer, 2011). Without the relevant legislative acts, this operation could have been criminal and willful, especially since its preparation details were kept secret until it was carried out. However, the U.S. Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks passed a resolution, Authorization of the use of military force against terrorists, authorizing the President of the United States to use necessary and appropriate forces against those states, organizations or persons that took part in the attacks (Searcey, 2011). It was this piece of legislation that the Obama administration referred to in justifying the use of force, appropriately justifying the activity.

No less important was that, according to the law, the ongoing military special operation should not have affected the civilian population in any way. As a result, a massive air strike on the outskirts of the Pakistani city where Osama bin Laden was allegedly located was ruled out because, in this case, the operation would have cost human lives among civilians and would have caused significant infrastructure damage. The use of a drone capable of hitting pinpoint targets seemed more acceptable, but American intelligence agencies needed to get vital intelligence from the bin Laden house and make sure that the al-Qaeda leader was killed, if not captured. The organizer of the special operation took the risk and chose the ground method of assault by the forces of the special forces.

On the other hand, there was the complicated fact that in 1998, bin Laden was indicted in the U.S. District Court of Manhattan. According to the law, a person under charge must be detained and brought to court. However, after the operation, many governments and the media questioned whether the order was to kill or take life (Pfarrer, 2011). Legally, no one has filed claims against Obama within the country. Moreover, the news was received positively among the population, except in some areas and communities. The lack of evidence of the assassination of bin Laden and the dissatisfaction of Islamic leaders with the form of burial, rather than any legal issues of the special operation, caused fierce disputes. Although each participant was not supposed to expand on the details of the work of the special forces group, various aspects of the operation began to leak into the press. However, this reflects individual responsibility, which also had no consequences for the participants.

According to the official version, bin Laden was unarmed but was killed because he resisted. Such a presentation of events did not suit human rights activists. Claudio Cordone, senior director of Amnesty International, said it was unclear how bin Laden could resist without weapons. In his opinion, the military should have taken the terrorist alive and brought him to justice (Bowcott, 2011). Years later, Bissonnet and ONeill told the media that bin Laden did not attempt to defend himself. However, even in this case, their decision to eliminate the terrorist could be fully justified.

As a consequence, most agreed that the killing during the operation was an act of self-defense. The United States called for disclosing more facts about the case and the investigation to assess the operations legality within the framework of international humanitarian law. However, there was an opinion that this operation was an extrajudicial execution without due process (Bowcott, 2011). The issue of the dilemma about the secrecy of the task and informing the organizations interested in the fight against terrorism is raised. Obama is being sued for an uncoordinated, secret, and short-term solution, a kind of intervention in Pakistan. However, this operation was dictated by the need for international security.

Conclusion

Barack Obamas responsibility for setting in motion the Operation Geronimo plan was justified domestically and met with dissent only within media outcry, related more to the consequences of the deed than to the motives. The accusations were primarily verbal and directed at a request to shed more light on the investigation and the path leading up to that decision. On the other hand, the secrecy of the operation preparation allowed the United States to carry it out successfully and without losses. Most of the claims rested on the recognition of an act of self-defense. Although many organizations, most often aimed at protecting human rights, did not approve of the unauthorized conduct of the operation, Barack Obama and the U.S. government have not received a proper legally documented charge to this day. However, the analysis of legislative aspects indicates that the then-president had legal authority.

References

Bowcott O. (2011) Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killings legality. The Guardian. Web.

Pfarrer, C. (2011). SEAL Target Geronimo: The inside story of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. St. Martins Press.

Searcey, D. (2011) Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say. The Wall Street Journal. Web.

Introduction

Obamas new national health plan tailored for all Americans has been one of the best among all other plans brought by previous presidents. While it is important to note that a good healthcare plan was one of the most important needs for the people of America, it was not until now that a balanced approach to this issue came up. In fact, Obama has brought out insurance policies that will be able to cover both rich and the poor equally. Until now there were many who could not afford to take insurance coverage for themselves and there family. Now with this policy it is possible for every one to take policies that will do much benefit to the public.

Main body

Some of the most important features covered in Obamas health care policy are as follows: Every American will have a assured eligibility to take up insurance at a much lesser premium than the private insurances offer. Secondly, the plan assures that under no circumstances will any American be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. As a result of this, it will be easy for many who do not have health coverage to get insurance and also get good treatment. Additionally, it is said that the insurance policy will have comprehensive benefits that are offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) that is similar to the plan that members of Congress have. It is possible for the general public to have all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care through this policy. As mentioned earlier, the health plan will have reasonably priced premiums, co-pays and deductibles. There are also schemes for those who do not have Medicaid or SCHIP but at the same time need financial support when it comes to health care. They will be able to get assistance based on their income to buy the new government plan or any of the private health care plans that already exist.

The new government health plan will have an easy enrollment having a ready access to coverage and the procedure is comparatively much simpler than earlier plans. Additionally, Americans need not worry about the change of job as it would not have any impact on the existing health care coverage. In other words the health care policies have become portable and are left to the choice of the individual. There are also stringent rules that ensure the quality and the efficiency of the insurance companies involved in the new public program.

Though, initially I was also skeptical about this reform as it looked too good to be true. There are several reasons associated with the skepticism. For instance, it was said that there will be a reduction in the existing premiums for people who already have health insurance. I was not able to accept this because there are many who get insurance at no cost. Even with these reforms there will be a few who may not take up any insurance policies. However, about 47 million who are without insurance presently will be covered under health insurance.

There are several other uniqueness in Obamas new national health plan. For instance, he plans to solve several small problems in the current health care system that will lead to a promising low cost and good patient care system. Some of the major areas that need special attention are compensating those who incurred ruinous medical expense in healthcare. The new plan will also concentrate on various disease management programs, promote the increased use of electronic records maintenance, and also lower the cost of prescription drug.

Conclusion

Obamas new national health plan has also not ignored the need for new research for future medical training and prevention of diseases. AIDS and other serious health challenges are also not ignored in the new plan. Hence, there are a number of positive points that has made this health care plan one of the best when compared to plans proposed by previous presidents.

Situation Description

The organizational issue chosen to discuss through the four-frame model (structural, political, human resources, and symbolic) is the one I have experienced in the Army: namely, the massive layoff within the military during the Obama administration.

The key players of the U.S. Armed Forces are: the President of the United States (who is the official head of the military), the U.S. Department of Defense, the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard  all operating in collaboration in order to ensure the protection of the country from outer hazards. The new desired outcomes of the Forces set forward when Mark Milley became the U.S. Armys chief of staff, were readiness, modernization of the force, and provision of due care to soldiers. Yet, the later aspect of concern could not align with the major goal set by the administration: to shred the size of the army due to technology not being at war.

It was expected to get down to an initial 490,000 (Army) level from 517,000 in 2014. This decision had a huge impact on both home operations, and outer conflicts resolution since size and age affect structural shape and character. Problems crop up if growth (or downsizing) occurs without fine-tuning roles and relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 60). More than 40,000 soldiers and app. 17,000 civilian employees working for the Army were laid off due to mandatory spending cuts.

As a result of these measures (besides their destructive influence on thousands of military families and communities), recruiting declined; however, the Army lost so many people that it wants to increase the number of its soldiers once again. The government, in its striving to cut costs simply neglected the fact that layoffs could negatively affect perceptions of organizational trust, organizational morale, employee coping and job commitment, and their effect on job satisfaction (Reinardy, 2010, p. 3).

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical framework is necessary to help scholars ensure that their studies are consistent, coherent, and pursue a clearly defined set of objectives in order to achieve the ultimate goal. According to some new approaches to research, a theoretical framework is not obligatory for study design (for example, if the inductive method is implemented). However, this contradicts the accepted wisdom that any researcher must define an underlying theory he/she is going to prove by conducting practical research (Green, 2014).

Indeed, frame analysis is useful for an organization as it allows its leaders to estimate any situation from a number of different perspectives in order to perform a thorough analysis and solve even the most complex problems. Bolman and Deal (2013) singled out four major frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) and demonstrated how the use of multiple frames could assist in addressing various organizational issues (even those that failed to be resolved using a single frame) thereby boosting organizational performance.

Mainly, this is explained by the fact that organizations of today have to deal with far more complex problems than in the past as they are generated by the modern world of fast-paced business development, interconnectivity, technological advance, and social progress. Thus, the success of this or that company is largely predetermined by its ability to view and analyze business processes through multiple frames and synthesize the results obtained (Bolman & Deal, 2014).

According to the authors of the model, a frame should be understood as a mental model comprised of ideas and assumptions that a person applies for understanding an issue and deciding what can be done about it. Seemingly complex problems can be solved with the help of frame analysis as it relies on a creative approach to discern underlying causes and eliminate them. This analysis is often equated to a kind of art: the analogy is built on its ability to complement and enhance traditional problem-solving models (just as art complements science) but not to replace them. The best possible course of action can be chosen only if the frame is used in combination with other methods and techniques (Bolman & Deal, 2014).

The first frame that the authors of the model elaborated was the structural frame. The structural point of view emphasizes the idea that formal structure is able to enhance employee morale and improve organizational performance. It was proven by numerous studies that educational institutions with looser structures tend to demonstrate lower morale of students than in well-structured bodies.

However, the structure works only under the condition that it is chosen to suit a particular organization and manages to satisfy its needs. Neither can it be called effective if it becomes inflexible and full of red tape (which can happen if the only thing the organization relies upon is the structural frame) (Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Moreover, when companies rely exclusively on structure, they run the risk of forgetting organizational interests: Their leaders shift the stress to personal profits, which can result in the formation of tyranny within the company. Although the structural frame is often effective, it does not manage to deal with anything lying outside the accepted structure, daily tasks, and previously applied policies. This implies that it discourages innovation, making organizations more conservative and inflexible. It is necessary for managers to know potential threats of the structural frame to be able to discern problems (Bolman & Deal, 2014).

The second frame described by Bolman and Deal is the human resources frame, which derives from the assumption that employees themselves are primarily interested to perform their job well to improve the performance of their organization. The key value of this frame is that it attaches a lot of significance to job satisfaction aligning the personal interests of employees with organizational values, goals, and strategies. For the human resource frame to be effective, it needs strong and committed leadership. If the leader is not good at decision-making and cannot satisfy basic needs of employees (including safety needs), employees will not stay loyal to the organization.

One of the major disadvantages of the model is that it perceives human nature as something naturally good whereas in reality not all employees strive for collaboration and company development. This means that the frame does not attach enough significance to power since it relies on people who are deeply committed to the organization. Nevertheless, the frame has an undoubtful advantage: It takes care of employees as a driving force determining profitability. Indeed, a motivated worker, who receives both financial and non-financial incentives, is likely to contribute a lot to the success of his/her company and does not need to be closely monitored (Bolman & Deal, 2014).

The third frame under discussion is the political frame, closely connected with power and the way it affects interactions. It is concentrated on the inner policy of an organization: Basically, it implies identifying who is responsible for what and who has power to control actions of others. In such organizations, senior managers should understand what expectations stakeholders have and try to manage a wide variety of demands to make priorities aligned.

Hence, this frame requires strong leaders (good negotiators and problem solvers), just like the structural model. The weak point of the political approach is that it does not foster cooperation focusing on conflicts and misunderstandings instead: As a result, it shows general mistrust to all stakeholders and, unlike the previous frame, never believes in the natural desire of people to be committed to the company (Bolman & Deal, 2013).

The last frame the researchers single out is the symbolic frame. It emphasizes the fact that brand image is equally important as actual performance of an organization. That is why they usually have corporate symbolic frames (traditions, rituals, and ceremonies) that are believed to reinforce common values and make employees feel as a part of one whole. Leaders of such organizations must be charismatic and eloquent to successfully communicate their message.

A company operating within this framework runs the risk of falling into extremes: It can be either perceived as a strong manipulator or as a bundle of fanatics that disguise their failures. In its most successful version, the symbolic frame creates a strong unity in an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Evidently, each of the frames gives its unique insight into an organizational process and each features its own benefits and drawbacks. The entire model can be summarized as follows (Bolman & Deal, 2013):

Table 1. The Four Frame Model.

Application of Theory

All the four frames can be applied in order to address the problem of the massive layoff within the military. However, each frame will give quite different outcomes.

If we implement the structural approach to the problem, the desired outcome would be not to lay off soldiers but to come out with the ideal structure of the forces that would allow clear division of responsibilities leaving no one redundant.

One of the other major goals would be to improve technical provision and strategic planning. Thus, application of the structural frame would find drawbacks not in the number of people servicing in the Forces but in the way their service is organized: The Army must come out with a new direction, restructure, upgrade, and invest in new priorities in order to ensure stability of defense. An integrated approach is required to coordinate all the agencies responsible for domestic and foreign operations (Dueck, 2015).

However, there is still one obvious negative impact of the frame: The U.S. Army is notorious for its resistance to change and reluctance to move in a new direction, which means that the structural approach would make it even more inflexible.

The human resource frame, on the contrary, would change the situation drastically as this approach would never permit layoffs that would lead to deplorable consequences for soldiers, civilian employees of the Army, and families of both. The human dimension concept would become central: The Army would concentrate on the process of selection, education, support, and professional development of the military and civilians.

The application of the frame would encompass physical, financial, cognitive, social, mental, moral, and other constituents focusing on aspects that have to be addressed specifically to ensure commitment of people to their service in the Forces. The leaders would have to admit that powerful Army consists of people who are satisfied with the conditions of their service and therefore show strong commitment to it. In addition, the military would choose a more peaceful direction: Reconstruction and stability missions would be undertaken to restore regions struck by terrorist attacks; the Army would seek alleviate human sufferings, not to add more (Dueck, 2015).

The drawback of the model is that it is likely to fail in leadership issues. Lack of control is disastrous in the Forces as it leads to quick degradation. This means that the frame can be implemented only in combination with another.

The political frame, in its turn, would concentrate its attention on enforcing control from the top: The major problem of the Forces is the lack of cohesion in the government and the Department of Defense. During Obama administration, it was the DoD that insisted upon layoffs, while the House argued that the Army should grow by at least 5,000 soldiers. The political frame would never allow such discrepancies as control would be exercised by the only leader, who would find a way to align priorities. Moreover, the approach would solve the problem of inadequate resource distribution (Fallows, 2015).

Yet, application of this frame would threaten with even more massive layoffs if the government decided that it would be the most effective solution. Peoples interests would be totally ignored.

Finally, the symbolic framework would address the problem from a completely different perspective as it would concentrate not on what happens but on what it implies. The government would find a way to account for layoffs and create inspiration to resolve confusion. It would dwell upon the uniqueness of a soldier and his ability to break through hardships taking pride in the fact that even being laid off he can serve the global purposes of the Army Strong. Just like the Army influences recruits encouraging them to become physically, emotionally, and mentally strong, it could influence victims of downsizing making them believe that their sacrifice is inevitable.

This frame would probably ease tensions but it would definitely be helpless in providing solutions to the problem.

Summary

The application of the four frames to the situation would give the following results:

Table 2. Model Application.

Conclusion

The analysis reveals that neither of the frames is efficient enough to be applied solely. They would all improve the situation with layoffs in a certain aspect leaving other problems unresolved. The Forces need a comprehensive approach. The best combination would be to implement the political frame (to achieve consistency of policies) supported by the human resource frame (that would allow to make the Army more human-oriented). Coordinated policies together with service satisfaction would create unprecedented commitment of both soldiers and civilians.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2014). How great leaders think: The art of reframing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dueck, C. (2015). The Obama doctrine: American grand strategy today. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fallows, J. (2015). The tragedy of the American military. The Atlantic, 315(1), 72-90.

Green, H. E. (2014). Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 34-38.

Reinardy, S. (2010). Downsizing effects on personnel: The case of layoff survivors in U.S. newspapers. Journal of Media Business Studies, 7(4), 1-19.

The great depression and isolationism demanded new international policies and relations that would help America to overcome the economic crisis and played an active role in international affairs. Always a consummate politician, Franklin Roosevelt saw an isolationism welling up among the population and veered away from confronting this trend. For several years Franklin Roosevelt had tiptoed around the Americans growing policy of isolationism by keeping silent.

Franklin Roosevelt saw grave political dangers in Wilsons politics, and he did not want to see the convention vote divided between the factions. Thus, new economic conditions and World War I demanded new social order. During this period o time, Franklin Roosevelt was faced with growing international tensions and deepening problems at home, domestic and foreign policies were more intertwined than ever before. For both state international order and economic stability and the appeasement of the political dictators offered national benefits in the economic, financial, social, and political spheres; equally the national policies adopted in the search for national cohesion, economic revival, and social peace all had direct consequences for foreign policy¹.

The main changes in international politics were the rise of Germany and European powers and the economic recovery of the European nations. Franklin Roosevelt supposed that the American state needed new effective international politics to protect the nation and integrate into a new social and political system. Roosevelts foreign policies emerged in the 1930s because of new waves of military aggression and militarization of the European nations, Britain, and Germany. The implications were directly felt in foreign and security strategies where spending restrictions served to heighten the sense of inadequacy. The American government attached great importance to the military power available and to the opinions of their advisers. Although both continued to dispose of military forces, the feelings of a shortfall in the levels needed to tackle productively international problems, or to continue to meet their worldwide commitments, ran deep in military alliances and among their political chiefs².

The economic depression of the 1930s, falling standards of living, the unparalleled number of unemployed in America, the resulting social unrest, and the emotional environment this engendered all played a role in foreign policy. To the socially and politically stable European nations, the possibility of a spillover of the international ideological battles into national politics was a constant terror mainly in 1935 and 1936 which saw a deepening of these political conflicts and of the linkages between them on the national and international planes. Also, growing numbers of isolationists feared international alliances as threats to national autonomy and some even went so far as to blame proponents of treason. In the economic environment of the mid-1930s, Britain and France chose to reduce their rearmament in the interest of overriding fiscal and budgetary aims³. For America, the strength of isolationist opposition and momentum for a policy of appeasement and made any alternative strategy more difficult than ever. In this, the attempts to achieve peace at home and abroad were linked. These shared national desires and challenges go some way to explaining the society of interest that existed between the USA and European countries and their responses to the new fascist challenge. The end result was to reinforce the case for an international policy of conciliation and to underline the need for international solidarity.

Bibliography

Black, K. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom. PublicAffairs; export ed edition, 2005.

Footnotes

1. Black, K. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom. (PublicAffairs; export ed edition, 2005), 43.
2. Black, K. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom. (PublicAffairs; export ed edition, 2005), 43.
3. Ibid., 54.

On 29th January 2002, George W. Bush condemned Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the axis of evil during the course of his State of the Union Speech, addressed to both the Senate the House of Representatives of the US Congress (Kim et al, 109). He said: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an Axis of Evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. He further added All nations should know America will do what is necessary to ensure our nations security and served virtual ultimatums to all these three countries: The United States of America will not permit the worlds most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the worlds most destructive weapons (Bush, 2002). Originally, the expression suggested to President Bush was axis of hatred which was replaced by chief speechwriter Michael Gerson to the more theological axis of evil. As the statements were issued in the immediate aftermath of the September 2001 attacks on the WTC, the labeling of the three countries as axis of evil President Bush raised several questions  What did Iran, Iraq and North Korea have to do with 9/11? Why was the war widened to include these three countries before Al Qaeda and its collaborators were eradicated? Why were Iran, Iraq, and North Korea targeted as the countries with the worlds most destructive weapon? (Buchanan, 2005, 20). This paper explores the rationale and impact of President George W. Bushs axis of evil speech in January 2002.

Rationale

In this speech, President Bush made it clear that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are dangerous enemies of the United States. The assumption that these three countries were a threat to the new global order was based on the fear that they are basically outlaw nations or rogue states as labeled during the Clinton days and have the power to destabilize the world through their weapon power and sponsorship of terrorism combined with their anti-American stand. George Bush considered these nations as sharing a siege mentality. The speech also revealed how Israel and its allies have begun to dominate US foreign policy in the Middle East. The Jerusalem Post published many articles reporting Israeli praise for Bushs speech, particularly for including Iran in the axis of evil (Fayazmanesh, 2008, 114). Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have three fundamental similarities. They are all governed by autocratic regimes; second, militarily they have followed for long the acquisition and proliferation of WMD and missile systems. Finally, they have the military and political capacity to destabilize the world and threaten the national interests of the United States and its allies (Hayden et al, 123). In this speech George W. Bush also made three positive foreign policy implications; the war on terror is linked to the states that have violated the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Second, there would be very little chance of diplomatic talks between the US and each of the three countries and the US would be ready to take military against any of the three anytime. Third, Bush also implied that he will take similar measures against state sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba, Libya, Sudan, and Syria if they did not change their behavior (Hayden et al, 2003, 123). The stirrings of such an aggressive foreign policy that the Weekly Standard (February 8, 2002, 4) claimed would become known as the Bush doctrine, were compared to the Cold War during which the US challenged communist regimes as a menace to world peace and the free market (Herbst, 2003, 21). Though Iraq was subjected to years of weapons inspections by the United Nations and international sanctions, Saddam Husseins government had been suspected of developed nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (BBC News, 2002, 1). Moreover, reports said that Iraq was trying to rebuild its missile industry, and the fact that Iraq did not allow United Nations arms inspectors into the country, made it all the more suspicious. In the case of Iran, though there has been the rise of moderate elements, the relationship between Iran and the US remained clouded with hostility and suspicion (BBC News, 2002, 1). Moreover, there were CIA reports of Iran having chemical and biological weapons and being in the process of developing nuclear weapons (Pena, 2002, 1). Reports also suggest that North Korea has ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States by 2015. President Mohammad Khatami enjoys good support among the moderates but this does not mean much because it is the hardliners who control the military, intelligence, judiciary, and security forces (BBC News, 2002, 1). Tehran also supported active militant groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad (Pena, 2002, 1). As a result, it appears on the US State Department list as a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran also has a navy that is strong enough to control the flow of oil from the Gulf for brief periods according to US Defence Intelligence Agency Chief Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson. Though these strengths of Iran were developed as defensive measures, the US perceived the nation as a global threat. In the case of North Korea, Washington viewed with apprehension, its long-range ballistic missile program and the export of sensitive ballistic missile technology to states like Iran, Libya, Syria, and Egypt and its excessive plutonium resources. The sanity of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the specter of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, missile technology and advances weapons of Iraq and North Korea, and the fact that they do not have democratic rule are the major reasons behind Bushs axis of evil speech in 2002.

Impact

Although on one hand, the very notion of an axis of evil suggests that the Bush administration had inadequate clarity in the realm of geopolitics, it also opened the way to justifying military intervention by the US any place, any time for any reason (Kellner, 2003, 207). Moreover, the speech, by calling attention to countries that produce weapons of mass destruction, tried to legitimize preemptive strikes against countries that the United States chose to stigmatize and attack. In response, several states, including India and Pakistan claimed the same right and threatened to initiate nuclear strikes if they felt less than fully secure. Another point is that the axis of evil countries could be used to legitimate the production of the Star Wars missile defense system that critics had claimed had not been proven workable. As can be expected, the regimes named by Bush protested his demonizing rhetoric. While angry marchers protested in Iran, the North Korean media described Bush as the head of an empire of evil. South Korean newspapers accused Bush of undermining efforts to finalize the Geneva Agreement of dismantling North Koreas Nuclear Program (Kim et al, 2008, 109). Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of State pointed out that Bush had single-handedly destroyed the initial relations she had established with North Korea during the Clinton Age (Kim et al., 2008, 109). Critics also opposed the inclusion of North Korea, which had no history of global terrorism, and Iran, whose support the Bush administration had previously sought in the war on terror. Logically, the three regimes were not an axis or an interconnected group (Herbst, 2003, 21) and each one of them needed different policies. Hence there was alarm at the hyperbolic martial tone of President Bushs axis of evil speech and at the implied threat of the United States unilateral military action. These words of President Bush created disturbances even in the Kremlin because rhetoric from Washington affected Moscows diplomatic efforts in connection with Iraq and Iran. The Economist (The Economist Global Agenda, 2002, 1) suggested that Bushs words were designed to distract the attention of Americans from economic issues by focusing on terrorism while still, some others saw the speech as an act of bravery designed to rationalize the Pentagons long term plans (Herbst, 2003, 21).

The U.S. Axis of evil approach backfired in the cases of Iran and North Korea. The Arab and the Muslim population viewed the anti-terror campaign as a strategic way of exploiting the oil resources of Iran and Iraq. In a New York Times article of Jan. 5, 2003, entitled A War for Oil, Thomas Friedman states that any war that is launched in Iraq will only be in part about oil. He raised the question Why are they going after Saddam Hussein with 82nd Airborne and North Korea with diplomatic kid gloves  when North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them, a record of selling dangerous weapons to anyone with cash, 1,00,000 U.S. troops in its missile range and a leader who is even crueler to his own people than Saddam?. (El Ayouty et al, 2004, 131). In North Korea, it did not deter that country from declaring that it possessed nuclear weapons and intended to resume its plutonium enrichment program in contravention of its international agreements with the United States.

In his speech, George w. Bush had stated the obvious: that the United States would never again wait to be attacked. But the real issue was whether or not the states constituting the axis of evil posed threats that required preventive action. It would seem that neither North Korea nor Iran did post a threat, for the admin decided to deal with both through diplomatic means (Melanson, 2005, 311). Apart from these conflicts, it must be remembered that Mr. Bushs understanding of the Axis of Evil was rooted in the attacks on the US which took place on September 11, 2001. But why did Bush include North Korea or Iran or Iraq despite the three countries having no relation with the event? (Kim et al, 2008, 109). Naming them an axis of evil to justify expanding the war on terrorism seems premature at best and misguided at worst. Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks demonstrate that terrorism has essentially been privatized and that al Qaeda works on a business model. Thus, the organization has its own political agenda and simply uses weak countries as fertile ground for breeding terrorism. Removing regimes that are seen as being hostile to the United States will not destroy al Qaeda. Thus, Bushs concept of an axis of evil misses the mark (Black, 2004,163).

References

BBC News 2002. Analysis: Axis of evil capabilities. Web.

Black, LJ 2004. Vladimir Putin and the new world order: looking east, looking west? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Buchanan, JP 2005. Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, Macmillan Publishers.

El-Ayouty, Y; Galgan, JG and Greene, JF 2004. Perspectives on 9/11. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Fayazmanesh, S 2008. The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment. Routledge Publishers.

Hayden P; Lansford T and Watson, PR 2003. Americas war on terror. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Heradstevet D and Bonham, M 2005. What the Axis of Evil Metaphor Did to Iran, Web.

Herbst, P 2003. Talking terrorism: a dictionary of the loaded language of political violence. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Kellner, D 2003. From 9/11 to Terror War: The Dangers of the Bush Legacy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Kim S; Kollontai, P; and Hoyland, G 2008. Peace and Reconciliation: In Search of Shared Identity. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Melanson, AR 2005. American Foreign Policy Since the Vietnam War: The Search for Consensus from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. M.E. Sharpe Publishers.

Pena, VC 2002. Axis of Evil: Threat or Chimera? Cato Institute, Web.

Introduction

Bill Clinton achieved great fame and recognition by becoming the President of the leading nation in the world. While his 8 years tenure witnessed several impressive accomplishments that not only brought about considerable improvements within the country, but also boosted its international image, he was also responsible for spawning several controversies which ultimately led to his downfall from the office of the most powerful man in the world.

Early Life

The 42^nd American President was born on 19 August 1946 in Hope {Arkansas, United States} to William Jefferson Blythe II and Virginia Cassidy Blythe. He was named William Jefferson Blythe III in memory of his father who died in a vehicle mishap 3 months before he was born. William {Bill} lived with his maternal grandparents Eldridge and Edith Cassidy in Hope for 4 years while his widowed mother relocated to New Orleans {Louisiana} to begin a career in nursing. Bill learned several distinctive principles and beliefs from his grandparents, especially that all people are equal. The old Cassidy couple practiced what they preached by permitting individuals of all races to buy items on credit from their grocery store in defiance of the existing segregation regulations. Virginia Blythe returned to Hope in 1950 with nursing qualifications. She married Roger Clinton that same year. Bill relocated to Hot Springs {Arkansas} with his parents in 1953. His stepfather secured employment as a service manager in his brothers car company while his mother found a job as a nurse anesthetist (The White House).

Education

While studying in high school, the year 1960 proved to be a vital milestone in Bills life because of two events. As a member of a youth organization called Boys Nation, Bill {who by then had changed his surname to that of his stepfather} visited Washington D.C. where his group was invited to meet U.S President John F. Kennedy. Bill Clinton was among the first to shake the hand of the American President in the awe-inspiring Rose Garden chamber which proved to be the most significant and exciting event of his youth, spawning in him the ambition to become President one day so as to bring about a significant change in the lives of the American people. The second event involved Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As Bill viewed the great African American leaders televised I Have a Dream speech, he was so greatly affected by the words that he committed them to memory (The White House).

The hugely successful track records of President Kennedy and Dr. King encouraged Bill to put in hard work in his academic activities in school. His efforts paid off when he was awarded several academic scholarships which, in addition to loans from the government, enable him to enroll in Georgetown University in Washington D.C. As Bill studied to obtain his Bachelor of Science degree in International Affairs, he also took up an interns job in Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbrights office. It was here that Bill got a valuable insight into the role of a politician. When Bill completed his college course in 1968, he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to pursue his academic career at Oxford University, England. He gained valuable knowledge about governmental affairs during his tenure at Oxford. Bill joined Yale Universitys law school upon his return to his country. He continued putting in hard work in his studies of law until his graduation in 1973 (The White House).

Career as Governor of Arkansas

Bill Clinton began his working career by teaching law at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. His latent political ambitions made him run for Congress in 1974 against John Paul Hammerschmidt, the Republican incumbent in Arkansas. Despite losing the race, Bill added to his mounting knowledge of politics. His friend Hilary Rodham, who assisted him in his political campaign, also took up a teaching job at the University of Arkansas. The couple got married on 11 October 1975 (The White House).

Bills political career went into overdrive soon after his marriage. He first got elected as Attorney General of Arkansas in 1976 before going on to be chosen as Governor of Arkansas in 1978. Bill used his position to not only bring about significant improvements in Arkansas educational process but also initiated the construction of better roadways. The year 1980 brought good as well as bad news. The former came in the shape of Chelsea Victor who was born on 27 February to Bill and Hillary. The bad news involved Bill losing the race to become Arkansas Governor for the second term to Republican candidate Frank White. Unfazed by the loss, Bill responded by campaigning hard during the next gubernatorial election (The White House), especially focusing {in response to his wifes strong suggestion} on educational reform as the key for the states economic revival (Spring 68). The people of Arkansas reacted favorably to his renewed promises of addressing their requirements by re-electing him in November 1982 (The White House).

Having already made significant improvements in Arkansas educational system during his first term as Governor, Bill doubled his efforts during the second term. In keeping with his campaign promise to revitalize the educational sector {which earned him the name Educational Governor} (Spring 68), Bill brought about 3 important improvements. Firstly, he enhanced the salaries of teachers to increase their interest and efforts. Secondly, he introduced a scheme to evaluate children upon completion of their third, sixth and eighth grades. Thirdly, he motivated students parents to join in and assist in the education of their siblings. These improvements succeeded in establishing new educational levels whereby each child in the state, irrespective of income or community, got a high standard education (The White House).

Bill, who was also Chairman of the National Governors Association between August 1986 and August 1987, used his position to spearhead the governors attempts to bring about improvements in the educational reforms as well as welfare systems of all the states in the country. The success of his achievements primarily as Governor of Arkansas and secondarily as Chairman of the National Governors Association convinced Bill that the country was in need of a supreme leader who possessed the ability to think about the future with imagination, wisdom and strategy (The White House). This conviction was instrumental in making him run for the prestigious post of President of the United States.

Clinton becomes American President

Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton secured the nomination as the Democratic Partys presidential candidate in 1991. He opted for Tennessee Senator Al Gore as his vice-presidential partner. The campaign of Bill and Al was founded on 3 broad perspectives  retaining the American Dream, re-establishing the aspirations of ordinary Americans and recovering the future for their children. The duos campaign message was well received by the American people, who responded by electing Bill Clinton as the nations 42^nd President on 3 November 1992, with Al Gore as its 45^th Vice-President (The White House).

The partnership of Bill Clinton and Al Gore was so successful that they ran for re-election in 1996. Their campaign this time was based on 3 aspects  assurance of an enduring leadership as the country entered into the 21^st century, tackling the demanding situations that faced the nation and safeguarding American values. Their message was again received favorably by the American people who reacted by re-electing Bill Clinton as President for another term on 5 November 1996 (The White House).

Achievements as President of the United States

The 8 years during which Bill Clinton served as President of the country reflected the famous Clinton Third Way concepts which gained fans all over the world and still serves to inspire creative leaders in several countries (Clinton Presidential Center). By implementing the Clinton Third Way concepts, Bill made the following achievements.

Reformation of Government methods of conducting its work

The Clinton Administration passed the Work Investment Act which changed national employment and training schemes while also forming a national system of One-Stop Career Centers. Secondly, the Administration reduced the tax burden on middle-income families to its lowest level since 1972. Thirdly, Clinton passed the National Voter Registration Act that made voting so simple and trouble-free that it spawned the registration of 28 million new voters. Fourthly, despite enhanced investment in sectors like education and technology, the Administrations federal expenditure growth rate was the lowest since the 1950s Eisenhower years. Fifthly, federal rules regarding business were reformed whereby around 16,000 pages of rules were discarded and 31,000 pages were re-written into simple and easy-to-follow language. Lastly, the Administrations Reinventing Government Initiative spawned a savings of nearly $ 136 billion (Clinton Presidential Center).

Improvements in the crime and drug sectors

With domestic violence as its target, the Clinton Administration passed the historic Violence Against Women Act {VAWA} in 1994, granting more than $ 1.6 billion to the criminal justice network to improve the handling of domestic violence incidents. Secondly, two laws were enacted {Megans Law and the Jacob Witterling Crimes against Children & Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act} that needed states to establish sex offender registration networks. Thirdly, the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act was passed in 1994 to tackle hate crimes. Fourthly, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was started in 1997 to educate young people about the harm caused by drugs which brought about a reduction in drug use {as compared to the high levels of 1970} and a 48% drop in drug-connected killings. Fifthly, a persistent crackdown on gun criminals saw total national gun prosecutions rise by 22% and gun defendant prison sentences go up by 20%. Sixthly, the Brady Law enacted in 1994 served to stop over 1 million criminals from buying guns, while the National Instant Criminal Background Check system {NICS} introduced in 1994 made available fuller sets of records to law officers to scrutinize likely gun buyers {it resulted in preventing 300,000 unlawful gun sales}. Lastly, more than $ 1 billion was granted to hire 110,000 policemen, which brought about the longest reduction in crime rate {especially murder and gun violence which fell by 27% and 46% respectively} (Clinton Presidential Center).

Revitalization of the education sector

Publicly announcing its broad Improving Education plan (Spring 66), the Clinton Administration made greater availability of technology possible. Its investment in educational technology rose from $ 23 million in 1997 to $ 872 million in 2001. It also set up the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Erate Program to link all schools to the Internet, provide more computers to schools and imparting technology training to teachers. It resulted in linking 98% of public schools to the Internet (Clinton Presidential Center). The Progressive Policy Institute was also established to bring about the reinvention of public schools to suit the Information Age (Spring 66). Secondly, the entire school system was revitalized as more schools were constructed, failing schools were turned around, more highly-educated teachers were made available and safe after-school opportunities for 1.3 million children were made available annually (Clinton Presidential Center). Thirdly, Clinton signed the famous No Child Left behind Act which promised education to each American child (Spring 64). Lastly, college students were benefited from the Hope Scholarships, Lifetime Leaving Tax Credits and GEAR UP College Opportunity Program (Clinton Presidential Center).

Boosting of the economic sector

The American economy was at its strongest for more than a generation during the Clinton years, elevating it from record deficits to record surplus. Family income attained record high levels while child poverty dropped by 28.6% to just 16.2%. Secondly, employment was boosted in the form of 23 million new jobs, while real wage growth was the fastest and longest in more than 30 years. Lastly, reformation to the 1997 Community Reinvestment Act spawned a massive $ 800 billion in home mortgage and business loans from banks (Clinton Presidential Center).

Improvements in the environmental sector

There was a landmark investment in biomedical research. Funds to NIH agencies rose from $ 10.3 billion in 1993 to $ 20.3 billion in 2001, enabling them to sustain the topmost levels of research on almost all kinds of disease and health conditions. Secondly, private land measuring 20 million acres and 43 million acres were established for habitat conservation and the national landscape respectively. Thirdly, more than 50 initiatives on energy efficiency and renewable energy were started, while 22 national monuments were set up or expanded. Lastly, the strictest air pollution standards in American history were enforced, cleaning up work at toxic waste grounds was enhanced and new strategies to prevent global warming were devised (Clinton Presidential Center).

Reformation of the health care sector

Regulations were passed to greatly lower problematic, duplicative and unnecessary billing while creating a more united and reasonable electronic claims network for health care providers and insurance companies that resulted in a $ 30 billion savings. Secondly, landmark comprehensive reforms were passed in 3 areas  the FDA {to speed up the scrutiny of approval of new drugs}, health insurance and Medicare. Lastly, a grant of half a trillion dollars was allocated towards the improvement of federal health programs (Clinton Presidential Center).

Foreign policy achievements

Bill Clinton was instrumental in gaining China admission into the WTO thereby bringing that country under the influence of the rules-based global network and securing its commitment to stop supporting Irans nuclear program. Clinton also exerted significant efforts into peace initiatives in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo (Clinton Presidential Center).

Safeguarding religious freedom

The Clinton Administration enacted the Religious Liberty & Charitable Donation Protection Act in 1998 to safeguard churches from bankruptcy trustees. Other enactments by the Administration include the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 and the Religious Land Use & Institutional Persons Act of 2000 (Clinton Presidential Center).

Impeachment

Bill Clinton is widely regarded as Americas most investigated President (The History Place). His presidency was marred by several controversies which ultimately caused his downfall and impeachment.

The first controversy, called Travelgate, took place in May 1993. It began when 7 long-serving White House travel office workers were suddenly sacked and substituted for Clintons Arkansas-based friends. The sacked workers were examined by the FBI which spawned unproved assertions that it was done at the behest of the White House just to support the sackings (The History Place).

The Whitewater controversy followed in December 1993. It was caused when the FBI was prohibited from entering the White House office of Vince Foster, Deputy White House Counsel and close friend of Clinton {who committed suicide 5 months earlier}, while the Presidents aides had entered that office immediately after Fosters demise. It led to allegations that documents associated with Whitewater Development Corporation {Foster had filed its delinquent corporate returns over 3 years in June that year} were possibly removed from the office (The History Place).

The third controversy involved Paula C. Jones who declared before a Washington meeting of conservative activists in February 1994 that Bill Clinton, while serving as Arkansas Governor in 1991, sexually harassed her by asking her to perform oral sex on him. When her charges only provoked denials by the White House on behalf of Clinton, Paula filed a civil lawsuit against the President, demanding $ 700,000 in damages plus a personal apology (The History Place).

The last controversy involved White House intern Monica Lewinsky with whom Bill started an illegal sexual affair even while the Paula Jones controversy was still simmering. The couple indulged in 10 sexual acts in the White House Oval office suite. Lewinsky disclosed details of the affair to her friend Linda Tripp who secretly tape-recorded the telephonic disclosures (The History Place).

Whitewater counsel Kenneth Starr, who started an investigation into Bills role in the Whitewater affair in 1994, managed to get hold of Tripps tape recordings. He compiled a 453-page report on Bills role in the Whitewater and Lewinsky controversies which was submitted to the U.S House of Representatives in September 1998. It highlighted 11 impeachable crimes presumably committed by Bill. After 3 months of deliberations and hearings, the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton in December 1998. Bill went on to serve the balance of his second term before stepping down as President on 20 January 2001 (The History Place).

Post-presidency activities

Bill Clinton did not retreat into quiet retirement but embarked on various projects so vigorously that he still continues to be one of the most identifiable statesmen in the world today. He briefly participated in American politics by supporting Hillarys recent political campaign before she became the present U.S Secretary of State.

Having chosen global philanthropic projects as his area of concentration, Bills most high-profile venture has been the establishment of the William J. Clinton Foundation, which has a staff of 800 individuals stationed around the world. Its main project is the Clinton Global Initiative whose aim is to fight poverty and climate change {especially global warming} while fostering health projects {notably childhood obesity, HIV/AIDS and malaria} and education schemes all over the world. The Foundation was also responsible for building the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas (Keck & Silverleib).

Other Clinton global philanthropic projects include the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund and the Bush-Clinton Tsunami Fund {both established with former U.S President George H. W. Bush} that spearheaded relief work in the wake of the disastrous Hurricane Katrina in the U.S in 1994 and the tsunami that struck many parts of the world in 2005 (Keck et al.).

Bill Clinton continues to grab world news headlines every now and then. His latest feat in this regard was his impromptu trip to North Korea this month to successfully negotiate the release of 2 jailed American newspapermen who he brought back to the U.S with him (Keck et al.).

References

Impeachment: Bill Clinton. The History Place. 2000.

It All Began in a Place called Hope: President Bill Clinton. The White House. (N.d). Web.

Keck, Kristi & Silverleib, Alan. In Post-Presidency, Clinton Shows No Signs of Slowing Down. Cable News Network (CNN). 2009.

Record of Accomplishments. Clinton Presidential Center. (N.d). Web.

Joel H. Political Agendas for Education: From the Religious Right to the Green Party. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2005.

Introduction

The United States is presently one of the oldest modern democracies in the world. The countrys Constitution outlines the rights, liberties, and expectations of the people. The document also explains how the government and its agencies should strive to meet the demands of all citizens. Key stakeholders promote a representative model whereby democracy is the defining factor. Elections and leadership practices are usually by the diverse interests of lobbyists, business people, and citizens. This reflective essay describes the effectiveness of the nations political system.

Background and Analysis

The US promotes a federal system whereby different states formulate governments that promote social welfare, public safety, and health. Some issues are for the central government to handle and address, such as national security and foreign affairs. Federal power is divided into these key branches: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. The Supreme Court represents the judiciary and focuses on legal issues while the Executive outlines the roles of the cabinet and the president. The legislature entails the actions and goals of Congress. The Senate plays a unique role in monitoring the performance of different representatives.

At the state level, governors complete executive roles and promote the best ideas and actions that can take the people closer to their goals. Each state also has champers for senators and representatives. States have Supreme Courts that are intended to interpret most of the laws enacted locally. At the national level, the Electoral College is tasked with appointing the president. This is a body of elected officials whose role is to elect the countrys leader after every four years. This body is constitutional and has been in place for centuries. The electors represent the number of citizens in each region or state.

The Supreme Court has a total of nine judges. According to the Constitution, such professionals will serve for the better parts of their lives until they die or retire. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served in the Supreme Court for 27 years until her demise in September 2020. This model is intended to maximize the strength of the judiciary and ensure that it meets the demands and legal expectations of the countrys citizens.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The American political system has remained a true identity of the US for many years. People and leaders across the world examine some of its attributes and replicate them in their respective Constitutions. These attributes make it progressive and capable of meeting the demands of most of the citizens. However, some skeptics have viewed it as ineffective after examining some of its core aspects and provisions. This kind of division explains why a detailed examination of the systems weaknesses and strengths could present additional insights for maintaining or improving it in the future. The presentation could also encourage countries across the globe to consider better options to achieve their democratic goals.

The first strength that emerges from this system is that it outlines these branches of government. Each department is tasked with unique responsibilities that are critical for supporting economic development and the demands of the citizens. This model has been replicated across the globe because it presents a system for checks and balances. Each branch is not capable of having immense influence or power over the other. The result is that the government has reduced the chances of promoting dictatorial tendencies. Such attributes resonate with the separation of powers doctrine.

The second advantage that many scholars admire is the presence of a federal government supported by semi-independent states. This initiative is appropriate since it allows different regions to introduce and implement laws that resonate with the peoples demands. States can engage in activities that can improve living conditions and solve local challenges. Such a model makes it possible for each region to maximize its potential by collecting taxes and investing in the most appropriate sectors. This unique attribute explains why the country continues to remain one of the most successful in the world today.

The third one is that the political arrangement arising from the established system has led to the formation and survival of two major parties: Republican and Democratic. These organizations are capable of leading the people and engaging in manifestos that resonate with the demands of the citizens. During election days, individuals can focus on the records, achievements, and gains of these parties and make informed decisions. This approach reduces the possibility whereby there are numerous political contestants with many ideologies. Consequently, the country has been in a position to record significant gains and achievements. Many states and leaders across the globe have been focusing on this strength to emulate it to focus on the best approaches to achieve their social and economic gains.

The fourth strength arises from the stable nature of the system that has been passed across from one generation to the next. A unique model has remained in place that reduces the chances of radical change. The people and leaders are unable to make significant changes and amendments to the original Constitution. This fact explains why the country has continued to experience policy stability. The model is another reason why no two political parties can have total control in Congress and the Senate. This aspect has led to the presence of mixed government whereby cases of domination and oppression are usually impossible.

These advantages and strengths explain why some considerable pace and stability continue to exist in the country. For instance, the latest attempt to impeach President Trump failed since the government and representation remained mixed. Additionally, the model allows the country to take full control of presidents who might be having radical objectives and expectations that might be against those of the greatest majority. These achievements explain why the country has remained stable and capable of achieving its economic aims and goals.

Unfortunately, this unique system has its flaws and weaknesses that different experts examine from different perspectives. First, the model has been in place for centuries, thereby remaining outdated and being incapable of meeting the demands of the modern-day world. For instance, many people are usually disfranchised when their votes fail to count. For example, the presidential election of 2016 proved that the citizens were incapable of determining would become the president due to the presence of the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton garnered more popular votes in comparison with Donald Trump. This weakness explains why many people still believe that the system is inappropriate and incapable of supporting the expectations of the population.

Second, the model has supported the emergence and success of corporations and individuals who are capable to influence political outcomes. These powerful entities usually focus on the loopholes to focus on their interests and consider the best ways to have their favorite leaders in power. The possible outcome is that the actions and goals of the federal government would usually be aimed at addressing the expectations of a few individuals. This reality explains why the country is currently associated with giant corporations that are capable of influencing political processes. They would sponsor candidates who are capable of safeguarding their goals and interests.

Third, the American people continue to be silenced since the Constitution fails to provide additional incentives for addressing most of the modern issues most citizens face. For instance, the Second Amendment to the Constitution makes it impossible for the government and leaders to win in courts and allow the government to repeal or address gun politics. This gap explains why over 40,000 citizens die annually in the US due to the problem of gun violence. Most of the people who challenge this amendment in various courts have been unable to receive the intended justice. This issue explains why there are numerous constitutional concerns the citizens are unable to address. These gaps explain why there is a need for all stakeholders to collaborate and consider better ways to meet the demands of the greatest majority and take the country closer to its goals.

Possible Changes

The above analysis has identified some of the strengths and weaknesses that define the American political structure. The outlined challenges should become powerful reasons for introducing smaller changes that will make the system progressive and capable of supporting all citizens. One of the most appropriate decisions is how presidents are elected in the country. While retaining the powers of the three branches, the Constitution could be improved in such a way that the popular vote count dictates the winner. This kind of representation would be fair and capable of resonating with the expectations of all citizens.

The second change that those in power should consider is the move to include additional attributes in the system that can address the challenges most people encounter today. For instance, the government can identify new mechanisms to minimize the current challenge of gun violence. Such an approach can deliver additional solutions to the powers of corporations and wealthy individuals. These transformations will deliver a superior model that supports most of the citizens to overcome their problems and eventually become successful. The involvement of all key stakeholders is critical to ensure that sustainable gains are recorded.

Conclusion

The above reflective essay has offered powerful arguments regarding the strengths of the American political system. Although such attributes have led to a notable level of stability, there are specific gaps and weaknesses that all stakeholders should examine from an informed perspective. The identification and implementation of the proposed changes could address such issues and allow more people to be part of the governance process. The power American corporations command will diminish and ensure the nature of leadership is transparent and capable of supporting national economic progress and performance.

Bibliography

Gardbaum, Stephen. Political Parties, Voting Systems, and the Separation of Powers. The American Journal of Comparative Law 65, no. 2 (2017): 229-264.

Gardner, James A., and Guy-Uriel Charles. Election Law in the American Political System. Pennsylvania: Wolters Kluwer, 2017.

Holcombe, Randall G. Checks and Balances: Enforcing Constitutional Constraints. Economics, 6, no. 1 (2018): 57-68.