Category: President

Introduction

Becoming a president of the United States can be one of the most demanding jobs in the world. This is because of various constitutional, legislative and political interests. The paper shall look at some specific examples in history.

Constitutional crises of the Nixon and Reagan administrations

The Nixon presidency was afflicted with the Watergate scandal. It started from June seventeenth 1972 and culminated in the resignation of this president in the month of August 1974. The scandal emanated from a break in of the Watergate complex during the former mentioned date. This break in was carried out by five individuals who were found to have strong links with high ranking officials within the Nixon presidency. Some of them included the serving Attorney general and members of the Nixon reelection committee. Shortly after this burglary, the courts later came to realize that Nixon had knowledge of the break in and had taken substantial measures to cover up this crime. In the process of doing this, he engaged in several illegal actions such as payment of bribes to the burglars so as to keep them quiet, intimidating his political opponents and overstepping his mandate as president by requiring the CIA and the FBI to go against their obligations. In this regard, the president had committed perjury because of staging a large conspiracy. The constitutional crisis in the Nixon presidency emerged after it had been asserted that the President was trying to act over and above the three arms of the United States government which include the Executive branch (through its agencies), the legislative branch which wanted to impeach him and the Judicial branch which was in charge of the Watergate trial and subsequent hearings. President Nixon did not abide by all three branches demands when he was asked to hand over recording tapes. The latter leader had taped conversations going on in the White house and they had these tapes had the potential to reveal whether the President was guilty or not. After a long tag of war between himself and these three bodies, the President released the tapes and it found that he had engaged in a conspiracy to hide the true reason behind the Watergate break in. This eventually pushed him to the wall as he saw an inevitable impeachment campaign by Congress; he therefore had to step down. This scandal became a constitutional crisis because the three government branches were wrestling against a serving President. (Sirica 1979, 114)

President Reagan was faced with the Iran Contra affair that occurred in the year 1985. This scandal was a constitutional crisis because members of the Reagan administration attempted to override the countrys constitution under the guise of security. At that time, the National Security council was negotiating the fate of hostages held by an Iranian terrorist group. The latter council sold weapons to the Iranian terrorist group and then diverted this very amount (forty eight million dollars) to counter revolutionaries linked to the Nicaraguan government. There were two major constitutional issues that arose in these actions. First of all, the United States does not support such a method of handling terrorist organizations. It instead advocated for isolationist tactics. In other words, it was unethical to exchange hostages for arms as was the case in this deal. Secondly, the constitution did not approve of provisions of financial assistance to a revolutionary group in the concerned country. In other words, this was a direct violation of US policy on international relations with Nicaragua. It should however be noted that prior to this constitutional crisis, the US national security team was keen on prolonging the Iraqi-Iran conflict so as to wear out these two countries and thus secure the lives of the concerned US hostages. However, after the administration became frustrated with Congress opposition, it decided to act independently by funding the Nicaraguan contras. This eventually led to a crisis of the constitution since questions were brought forward on whether a presidential administration can act in contravention of Congresss decisions. It was also found that members of this administration were trying to obstruct investigations and the entire scandal was characterized by deceit as well as secrecy since documents involving the arms trade were destroyed by members of Reagans administration. (New York Times, 27 November 1988, A 15)

Modern presidency

The concept of modern presidency is characterized by presidents who act independently of their parties by appealing directly to the masses and also by leaders who take responsibility for their own actions without implicating their parties. The thirty fifth president of the US republic President John F. Kennedy demonstrated this concept in his election. This leader increased his influence and power at the cost of other government institutions and Congress as well. In fact, it can be argued that his actions were fundamental in causing competition between several modern presidents and congress when it comes to policy related issues. If there is a legislative agenda that a certain modern president endorses then such an individual is likely to push it forward with little regard for parliament. These patterns can be witnessed by actions carried out by Nixon, Clinton and Reagan within their terms in office. (Gould 2004, 41)

Modern American presidencies are also characterized by intense and successful use of media platforms to propagate ones agenda. The development of mass communication devices such as television, radio and others was critical in making this fact true. For instance, there had been an assassination attempt against President Reagan during his term in office. The American public was therefore waiting to hear what their president had to say to them with regard to this matter. This leader made a televised speech where he talked about his support for tax cuts for the American people. Through such tactics, he was able to win the citizens support.

Modern presidencies are also characterized by conflicting demands. This can be demonstrated very clearly through President George Bush Jnr.s presidency. In the modern era, the American people redefined their expectations of what their President should be; one who understands the needs of the common persons but at the same time takes control of the international arena. These are conflicting expectations that may sometimes lead to the detriment of a certain leader. For instance, in the Bush presidency, the public demonstrated wide support for his policies after the nine eleventh attacks as he displayed aggressive leadership in the international arena. This support was so strong that it led to his re-election. However, after prolonged occupation of Iraq, it became evident to the American people that there was a wide divide between their president and the needs at home. This eventually led to his waning popularity and public disdain against him.

Another important aspect of the modern American president is the reduction of legislative powers against presidents. After President JFK got to power, he introduced the concept of a celebrity president who could appeal directly to the hearts and minds of the people. These powers were so great that they could even surpass some of congresss powers. A case in point was President Bill Clinton. The latter individual was facing a possibility of impeachment by Congress as a result of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. However, he publicly apologized for his actions and therefore won the support of the populace. This eventually caused parliament to loose certain elements of their impeachment abilities as they had to reconsider opinions held by the public.

Conclusion

The modern presidency is a huge challenge to various individuals because there are varying and conflicting expectations. However, some presidents have managed to juggle these divergent views.

References

Gould, L. 2004. The modern American presidency. Lawrence: Kansas University press.

Sirica, J. 1979. Break in, tapes, conspirators and the pardon. NY: Norton Publishers.

Introduction

When it comes to elections and politics, many countries face the harm of prejudice against the possibility of female contribution to the field. In particular, throughout the history of the US, there has been no woman selected as President, while many have run for the position. Even though the number of female leaders in the US has significantly increased recently, the country still has not had a female President, which identifies the issue of gender inequality and needs to be changed.

Main body

In my opinion, many voters are kept from opting for female candidates by social prejudice and stereotypes that women cannot take up leading roles. The media often promote the negative tendency by an enormous amount of attention to male candidates. Therefore, even though the publics interest in supporting women running for the President grows, females continue to encounter more adverse perceptions from the media and political elites. I believe that women in the US have to put more effort into fighting off the harmful stereotypes and social prejudice, which gives their male competitors an advantage.

To truly change the rates and support women with well-designed ideas and a high potential for becoming the President, society needs to give up on gender stereotypes and accept equality as a core principle. This idea can be implemented by actively addressing the issue in mass and social media, and creating awareness in people. Not even more advantageous, but at least an equal treatment is needed for female candidates, which will even up the odds to win the election for both.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the issue of female struggle to fight for a presidential election is not spotlighted enough in the US. While some people are ready to support talented candidates despite their gender, many still are influenced by outdated and baseless stereotypes. The situation needs to be improved to ensure a thriving society with fair opportunities, healthy attitudes, and reasonable ideas about the primary values of the nation.

Having the attention of the US president or even his office is an outstanding achievement. The presidents schedule is hectic, and, in most times, only issues of national and global interests get to his table. You definitely would not mind telling the president your feelings regarding certain critical aspects that affect Americans. A letter to the president would address an issue you are passionate about sharing and would want it resolved to save lives. But what does it take to have your letter reach the president? Former President Obama loved letters, and he shared a couple of his best with the public. Every story matters, and so does every letter to the president. Every writers dream is to have their letter attract the presidents attention, but what would it take to have it done perfectly?

Every writer would be excited to have an audience with the president to tell him what he thinks about an issue. A review of some of the letters to President Obama in the White House archive is an enjoyable literary journey. On March 24, 2010, an anonymous writer from Windsor Locks, Connecticut, wrote an inspiring letter to President Obama to express her concern for the American economy, family, and home. In the letter, the mother of one little boy aged 5 outlined the struggles Americans undergo to support life during that trying time of economic instability (Anonymous 1).

In the letter, she outlines their challenges living even after being laid off. Her husband was similarly laid off and has been on and off work since he got his new employment. She expresses the fact that their son does not have any form of insurance. They have difficulties servicing their mortgage and face losing their hour into foreclosure. She expressed her frustration paying their loan while bearing the cost of taxes. Despite the conditions, the writer expressed hope for a remarkable transformation the next day. She emphasized that her desperation reflects the needs that every American underwent following the 2008 economic crisis. She tasked the president to act and ensure every American can afford a decent lifestyle.

Notably, every reader of the anonymous writer from Windsor Locks, CT, can relate her feeling to those of other millions of Americans. Every writer should, therefore, endeavor to address concerns that are a significant challenge to the population. Writers of letters to the president need to address the concerns of middle-income Americans. Similar to the anonymous writer, let the president know what Americans experience and their frustrations. It is important to apply real-life examples and experiences to emphasize the challenges outlined in the letter. A transformational letter should have the president reminded of his roles and promises to citizens.

On February 13, 2016, Aleena K., a young high school girl from Germantown, Maryland, wrote to the president, congratulating him for addressing Muslim-Americans concerns. In the letter, she expresses the struggles Muslim-American teens undergo in a country with Muslim minority citizens. She notes that the media is responsible for spreading the identity crisis that most American-Muslims are experiencing. In the letter, Aleena K. applauds the president for visiting a mosque in Baltimore to instill hope in American-Muslims that they have a place in society (1). The presidents address at the mosque, according to Aleena K., relieved many Muslims from the thought of negative comments targeting them and the harsh rhetoric they experience from non-Muslim citizens. Aleena K writes that the presidents gesture renewed hope among Muslims in the country because he believed in them. She concluded by asking Americans to exhibit tolerance and acceptance from both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Aleena Ks letter got to the presidents table because of the articulate expression of appreciation to the reader for his heroic action. In other instances, writers need to express gratitude to the president for the small but influential steps he exhibits. Writers should not only focus on condemning the activities of the president. Instead, they should credit efforts made by their leaders and which influence Americans lives. Discrimination and intolerance targeting Muslim-Americans are common and demand the support of influential leaders to end it. Aleena Ks letter, therefore, is exemplary and deserves the presidents attention. It is a motivation to leaders that citizens, including teenagers, appreciate their efforts and applaud them for positive deeds.

On March 14, 2015, Sheryl Cousineau from Kennewick, Washington, wrote requesting President Obama to resolve undocumented immigrants plight. She tells the story of an undocumented family she has known for fifteen years. Cousineau tells the president that the family has lived in the country trying to get an income (1). They came from Mexico to find better opportunities and make a living for their children. Their efforts to get valid papers in America have been a challenging and frustrating journey. Cousineau needs the president to feel undocumented immigrants condition and note that they are innocent souls trying to make life bearable. She expressed that separating families of undocumented immigrants is inhumane. She urges the president to lobby and have congress pass a bill that would protect undocumented immigrants whose interests are to work in America.

Cousineaus letter got to the presidents table because it clarifies the plight of undocumented immigrants who came to America with the hope of better lives. Her story of the family she has known for fifteen years makes readers feel the situation is grave and demands legislative actions. She contributed to the call for reforms to Americas immigration laws that have long been a concern to many citizens. Similar to Cousineau, every writer should ensure the letter resonates with the frustrations of victims who suffer and whose conditions demand remedy. Millions of undocumented immigrants have the sole focus of improving their lives. Cousineaus letter makes a case for Americans to hold their leaders accountable to make reforms to their immigration laws. Every writer, therefore, should endeavor to make a case for change and reforms that would improve the lives of individuals struggling with a problem.

Ashley Young, a pregnant woman from Clinton, South Carolina, wrote to President Obama expressing her fear of contracting the Zika virus. On January 29, 2016, her letter was a response to a critical public health concern to many Americans. She demanded immediate action from the president to keep the public safe from the Zika virus (Young 1). She expressed her disappointment that should the government fail to have a remedy to the Zika virus, most children born in America would experience severe neurological congenital disabilities. She is perturbed by the level of exposure to danger, being a resident in the south where mosquitoes are common. She may not, therefore, deliver a healthy baby. She also expresses that the virus is dangerous to other unborn babies.

The president responded to Youngs letter to assure her that he shares similar concerns as a parent and father. He assured her that a team is in place mandated to expedite vaccine research for the Zika virus. He urged Young to find ways to ensure she stays safe as experts learn about the virus. Notably, Youngs letter addresses the concern of millions of pregnant women in America who are at risk of having children with congenital anomaly. Like Young, every writer should ensure they do not advocate change that affects few but all other individuals. When a writer addresses a problem that affects many individuals, the president may consider addressing it.

Another letter from Ambience Lamar, a 17-year-old student in senior high school sent to the president on October 31, 2016, highlighted a chilling experience. The teenage writer from Beaufort, South Carolina, expresses his struggles after contracting the West Nile Virus. She suffered from encephalitis that left part of the body. She had never gained her full voice back since when she was two years old. She has had impairment for fifteen years and communicated with her teachers through the phone and sign language. In the letter, Lamar is concerned with a heinous incident she experienced on August 221, 2016. A police officer in North Carolina short a male who was deaf and mute. The police officer could not communicate with the victim because of his impairment. The incident instilled fear in Lamar, who thinks that she may suffer a similar fate because of her condition.

Lamar reminds the president that police officers often fail to communicate with people who are deaf or have speech impairments. She reminds the president that every American with a disability may mat have fair treatment from police officers. She notes that the highlighted case is not the first in which police officers kill deaf and speech-impaired because of communication breakdown. Police officers care for the disabled should involve calling an agency to speak for them. In the absence of an agency to help the disabled, there is a critical level of misunderstanding, which triggers police to brutalize them. Lamar expresses that most law enforcement officers dealing with people who are deaf or have speech impairments regard their reactions as resisting arrest (1). Police officers, therefore, understand that the disabled individuals cannot respond as promptly as they may demand. Lamar suggests that police officers should undergo training on handling disabled citizens. Besides, police officers can use an application to alert them when they arrested an individual who has disability.

Lamars letter got the presidents attention because it appealed to humanity. The incidence described in the letter is tantamount to torture and mistreatment of disabled individuals, the deaf and speech impaired. Further, Lamar presents proposals to resolve the problem, and the president couldnt agree more. The case resonates with the plight of the disabled when dealing with law enforcement officers (Valenzuela 1). When addressing the president, every writer should propose measures to resolve the concern. Lamars letter is an advocacy for the rights of deaf and speech-impaired individuals.

Serving in the US Army is an invaluable privilege that many desire to have. The thought of service under presidential orders creates a feeling of pride. The experience is best when you successfully serve in the great and iconic US Army and return home as a veteran. Veterans have stories, both sad and awesome. On February 2, 2014, Brandon Valenzuela, a veteran from Fayetteville, North Carolina, wrote to the president. His letter is precise and short. He applauds the president for his actions to end the war in Iraq. He appreciates the presidents decision terming it one that saved many lives. He encourages him to continue advocating morality.

Valenzuelas letter captures an Americans desire that must transform from military and combat operations, which are archaic, to diplomacy as the new world order. The US has received criticism from human rights groups and international organizations condemning its combat operations in Ira, Iran, Afghanistan. Valenzuela makes a case for other veterans who are happy with President Obamas decision to withdraw the army from Iraq. Similar to Valenzuela, every writer should exhibit gratefulness to the presidents office when commenting positively.

Although President Obama loved reading from the people, not all letters got to his table. Writing a letter to the president and having it published is a great success, but it demands standards. A review of sample letters that attracted President Obamas attention reveals diverse perspectives. Every letter bears unique content and must match the criteria needed to have the president read and purplish it. This paper offers such critical skills of writing a great letter to the president. Writers must address the concerns of victims they intend to tell the president. If it is an appreciation letter, express gratitude to the president. Let the president know you are happy with the actions of his administration.

Works Cited

Aleena K. Letters to President Obama. Obama White House Archives, 2016, Web.

Anonymous. Letters to President Obama. Obama White House Archives, 2010 Web.

Cousineau, Sheryl. Letters to President Obama. Obama White House Archives, 2015. Web.

Lamar, Ambriance. Letters to President Obama. Obama White House Archives, 2016. Web.

Valenzuela, Brandon. Letters to President Obama. Obama White House Archives, 2014. Web.

Young, Ashley. Letters to President Obama. Obama White House Archives, 2016. Web.

In accordance with domestic and international law, authorities have priorities of protecting the state and citizens against any potential threats. Among such instances when efforts had to be made in order to protect the nations was Operation Geronimo. All levels of the United States government have supported the classification of the USs campaign against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda as a military war since September 11, 2001 (Bergen, 2021). After media coverage of the events that led to bin Ladens execution, several fundamental issues have emerged, with the question of whether targeted assassinations can be distinguished in any meaningful way and have legal authority. However, when considering the issues of citizen safety, multiple terrorist threats, and high risks of further attacks by Al Qaeda, it can be indeed claimed that President Barack Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo.

Operation Geronimo

Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the attacks on September 11, was led by Bin Laden, and it was perceived that an enemy leader on the field might be attacked. When reviewing the legal aspect of Osama bin Ladens assassination, it is necessary to consider the events of September 9, 2001, which was the pivotal moment for policies to combat terrorism. Despite the lack of formal recognition of targeted killing, media attention and ensuing debate within the legal industry did start to mold the legal opinions backing the new regulation and aligning it with existing rules. Operation Geronimo was a special mission that involved locating and capturing Osama bin Laden (Bergen, 2021). President Obama directed the preparation for the operation, and he gave the U.S. Navy Special Warfare Development Group, commonly known as SEAL Team Six, the green light after consulting with his advisors (Bergen, 2021). The SEALs practiced for their operation at mock facilities constructed in North Carolina and Nevada (Bergen, 2021). The raid was officially approved by President Obama and took place on May 1, 2011 (Lahoud, 2022). For doing so, the president had the legal authority based on previous policies and regulations.

Domestic Law and International Law

Targeted executions by state agents are permissible under U.S. domestic law in certain situations. Targeted killing, as it is now used, can be carried out in forms that are compliant with standards of legitimacy, ethics, and the broad restrictions of war theory (Lahoud, 2022). The authority of the president to order Operation Geronimo can be explained through previous policies. In the beginning, Osama bin Laden was seen as a low-priority concern up until 1998 (Banka & Quinn, 2018). After the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, this evaluation was revised in 1998 (Banka & Quinn, 2018). A presidential determination allowing covert operations to capture bin Laden and execute him if he resisted was issued by President Bill Clinton (Banka & Quinn, 2018). The expansive jurisdiction of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force served as the cornerstone of the presidents legal argument (Banka & Quinn, 2018). Therefore, the previous aim to determine the location and execute Osama bin Laden gave Barack Obama the authority to give the order for Operation Geronimo. The main goal here was the protection of American citizens from following terrorist attacks.

Criminal Resistance

Moreover, the operation had a thorough legal assessment and was meticulously organized in accordance with American law, based on rules concerning executing a criminal when resisting. Al Qaeda has assaulted the United States and remains to be an immediate threat to the country under international law, and it is the responsibility of the authorities to capture any criminal associated with the terrorist activity (Lahoud, 2022). In accordance with its absolute right to national self-defense under international norms, the United States could employ action against Al Qaeda. Unlike most security actions, which are managed and governed by the Defense Department, this one was carried out in accordance with the CIAs lawful power as set down in federal law (Lahoud, 2022). Bin Laden was a wanted international terrorist who had escaped all capture efforts (Bergen, 2021). Moreover, during the last efforts to try to capture bin Laden, the terrorist resisted and did not indicate a willingness to cooperate and surrender.

Conclusion

Hence, it can be argued that President Barack Obama had the legal right to authorize Operation Geronimo when taking into account concerns about public safety, numerous terrorist threats, and the strong likelihood of more Al Qaeda strikes. In some circumstances, targeted executions by state agents are permitted by domestic law in the United States. President Obama had the power to launch Operation Geronimo due to policies aimed at authorizing Osama bin Ladens execution for previous attacks. The media coverage additionally changed the opinions of the public regarding such measures. Here, safeguarding American civilians from ensuing terrorist strikes was the major objective. The operation was also carefully planned in accordance with American law, based on guidelines for killing a criminal who is resisting, and it had a complete legal analysis. The terrorist resisted during the final attempts to arrest bin Laden and showed no sign of being prepared to cooperate or surrender.

References

Banka, A., & Quinn, A. (2018). Killing norms softly: US targeted killing, quasi-secrecy and the assassination ban. Security Studies, 27(4), 665-703. Web.

Bergen, P. L. (2021). The rise and fall of Osama Bin Laden. Simon and Schuster.

Lahoud, N. (2022). The Bin Laden papers: How the Abbottabad raid revealed the truth about Al-Qaeda, its leader and his family. Yale University Press.

Introduction to Gender and Presidency

When candidates are running for the position of the president of the United States, in addition to their central ideas they present, citizens who are voting also focus on the things that candidates can’t change about themselves, such as gender, race, or sexual orientation. One of the most controversial topics of the United States today, and always throughout history, is the argument on if the United States should have a female president. Is today’s America ready for a woman president? This essay is devoted to this topic.

There are currently 15 women leading their countries around the world, yet the United States, one of the strongest and most powerful countries in the world has not had a female president. The reasons as to why the United States should already have a female president include, but are not limited to, preventing history from repeating itself, helping improve equal rights for women, and providing a new perspective for the benefit of the country.

Historical Struggle for Women’s Rights

The first reason as to why the United States should already have a female president is because it could improve equal rights for women. Throughout history, women have been fighting for the rights that they have today, such as working in the workforce, the right to an education, and the right to vote. Although women have made much progress towards equal rights with men, there is still a significant way to go. A female president of the United States could help acquire equal gender healthcare, and help with the wage gap issue in America. “The issue of women’s rights was particularly controversial. Women had, of course, been active in the abolitionist movement from its inception, but primarily in female-only societies. In the late 1830s, however, activists Sarah and Angelina Grimké brought the issue of women’s rights to the forefront. The Grimké sisters were daughters of a South Carolina slaveholder but disagreed with their parents’ slaveholding practices and left for the North. They began publicly speaking against slavery, first to female audiences and later to those of mixed gender. Their activities brought condemnation from ministers in other denominations for taking part in unfeminine activities” (Berlet, Ira Lee). In this quote, the author is speaking about the abolitionist movement, and mentions two sisters named Sarah and Angelina Grimké, whose parents were slave owners. The Grimké sisters did not agree with their parents’ slave holding practices, and fled to the North, where slavery was not legal. After settling in the North, the sisters began speaking in the anti-slavery movements, and became activists for the abolition movement. This quote supports the claim that the United States should have a female president because, during the time period of this quote, slavery was very popular, especially in the south. It required courage and true passion, shown by the Grimké sisters, to stand up against their parents’ beliefs, supporting something that was so prominent in where they live. If a female was elected for the President of the United States, they could show those qualities, about a national problem occurring in America at that time, and help change it for the better.

A New Perspective: Women in Leadership

The second reason as to why the United States should already have a female president is because it could provide a new perspective for all citizens in the United States. In previous elections, citizens have voted for the part that their respective candidate represents, without fully understanding or agreeing with all of their fundamental values. This can lead to conflict between parties and eventually leads to overall tension in the United States. With all of the previous Presidents of the United States being male, a female president could help provide a new perspective accompanied with new ideas that people want to listen to, and help prevent some of this tension. “It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people—women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government—the ballot. For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people is to pass a bill of attainder, or an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor” (Susan B. Anthony). The quote above is taken directly from a speech made by Susan B. Anthony. She is openly speaking on the fact that women are not treated as equally as men are. This speech eventually led to a movement known as the Women’s Suffrage Movement in 1848. In this time period, to be strong enough to stand up for what you believe in, required a great amount of courage. Susan B. Anthony provided a new perspective for the people of the United States, that women deserve the same rights and treatment that men are entitled to. The reason that this quote supports the claim that the United States should have a female president, is because in the quote Susan B. Anthony provided a new perspective to the citizens of the United States in a way that they have never seen or heard before. A female leader can do the same, and provide these ideas the same way. She could allow people to agree to learn new perspectives. If there are some citizens that do not believe that the wage gap is prominent, or that women should have equal rights as men, this quote from the suffrage and working women speech shows that it is plausible for a woman to change this for the better.

Public Perception and Gender Stereotypes

Some people state the United States should not have a female president, because they feel as though women are not qualified to lead the United States. The past forty-five presidents of the United States have been males, because whenever a United States presidential candidate, because whenever a female candidate runs for president, the majority of citizens vote against her because they feel as though she is unqualified simply because she is a woman. “Clinton received her lowest scores (though still more than 50%) in the areas of inspiring people, bringing them together, and handling the responsibilities as commander-in-chief of the military. While Clinton received strong evaluations on such ‘masculine’ issues of the economy and foreign policy, she received lower evaluations not only on the ‘masculine’ role of commander-in-chief but also on the ‘feminine’ traits of inspiration and unification. Public opinion about Clinton’s favorability, support from voters, and qualifications to be president were mostly positive before, during, and after her 16-month campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. Clinton appears to have broken barriers in terms of gender stereotypes held by the public” (Bystrom, Dianne). This quote is talking about the statistics of the voting of the 2016 election with Hillary Clinton. This quote states that even though Clinton broke the stereotypes of women running for a professional position, her campaign was not very well received, because the public felt as though she was not qualified, and the United States was not ready for her to be president. They thought that she was not qualified because she was not reaching correctly to the issues in the United States that were seen as more ‘masculine’ issues such as issues with the military and foreign policy. This quote supports the counter claim that the United States should not have a female president because people believe that women are not qualified to be president, because it says that Hillary Clinton did not appeal to the ‘masculine’ issues in the United States. The reason for this was simply because she was a woman, thus why citizens believed a woman was unqualified to run the United States.

Conclusion: America’s Readiness for a Female President

Although some people argue that the United States should not have a female president, because women are not qualified enough for the position, the United States should already have a female president because it can prevent history from repeating itself Although the U.S has many great historical moments under the male administration that have lead it to be the nation it has become today, there are still periods of time in history, such as the great depression, that would a new perspective or way of thinking provided by a female president could provide. “Baker’s role with the SCLC allowed her to assist in the creation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1960, the sit-in movement erupted among black college students throughout the South. In 1960, Baker convinced the SCLC to sponsor a meeting of student activists at her alma mater, Shaw University. The NAACP, SCLC, and the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE) all sent representatives to the meeting, which culminated with the creation of SNCC, with Baker as its primary advisor. By 1961, SNCC had become the organization that Baker had been trying to create for several years. Unlike the SCLC, SNCC allowed for the active participation of women and young people. Most important, SNCC’s leadership, unlike either the SCLC or NAACP, was group-centered” (Weidman). This quote is speaking about a very influential female and African American activist during the civil rights movement. Baker made a group of young activists to fight for the rights of African Americans in the United States. She also created the SNCC, which was a group centered around the rights of African American citizens, and was completely led by young people, and women. This quote supports the claim that the United States should have a female president because during the civil rights movement, Ella Baker was preventing the history of slavery in the United States, and other forms of discrimination in the United States from repeating itself by leading this activist group in the civil rights movement. If the United States had a female president today, providing the nation with new ideas and perspectives, it could do just that. A new administrative perspective would help other forms of discrimination in history from preventing itself. That’s why I am firmly convinced that now is the time for a woman to rule our country, and modern American society is really ready for this.

Also, the intention of The Declaration of Independence is to display the inalienable rights of all citizens to those unsure of the split from the power of King George.

Jefferson uses the appeal to pathos in the second paragraph when he writes, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from equal creation the derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty, and the spirit of happiness…” This would emotionally appeal to the audience because it would allow them to realize that they are entitled to those three rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This also would persuade the audience to realize that their fellow citizens share those same ideals.

The appeal to logos is heavily used in The Declaration of Independence, when Jefferson lists the actions of King George that were morally corrupt. This persuades the audience to agree that all of the evil actions of the King were not in favor of the citizens of the colonies, only in favor of the King himself. This would further convince the people of America to cut all ties from England and claim their independence.

Because he is talking to Congress, Jefferson uses a very civilized and professional tone in The Declaration of Independence. His tone connects to his use of ethos. Due to his professional tone, his audience more likely trusts and believes his statements. This further adds credibility to Jefferson, a man already with a accomplished education.

Jefferson begins the Declaration by claiming that the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitled the colonists to separate from England. In saying this, Jefferson surreptitiously undermines the authority of the King of Britain and gives his following claims and declaration credibility, establishing ethos. The King was obviously against the separation of the colonists and believed it to be rebellion and betrayal. However, by claiming that a higher power gave the colonists the authority to separate because it was just, Jefferson is therefore claiming that a higher power exists and has precedence over the King. And this higher power therefore found the King and Britain to be at fault, granting the colonists separation. Because this higher power found the colonists deserving of separation, the Declaration is validated and given credibility and authority.

Throughout the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson uses pronouns like “us” and “our” and “we” when referring to the colonists, excluding King George and England. In contrast, Jefferson refers to the King mostly as “he,” rarely referring to his title or name. Jefferson even refers to the colonists as “one people” and the British citizens as “another”. In doing so, Jefferson plainly shows the separation between the colonists and Britain. The colonists are no longer unified under the King, they are unified under their Declaration. And the king is simply a separate entity with no power or influence over the united colonists and their new nation.

“A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” This is my favorite quote of the piece because it completely encapsulates the message of the colonists in one line. Jefferson had previously laid out the grievances made by the King and is now summing up the reason for the colonists’ separation. The quote establishes that the colonists are indeed free people deserving of a fit ruler, which Jefferson just proved King George was not. And the message of the quote cannot be argued with: a tyrant, which King George behaves as, cannot and does not rule over free people like the colonists. It would defy the definition of what a tyrant even is.

Thomas Jefferson uses pathos throughout the Declaration by using clearly stated examples that, through use of strong negative adjectives, Jefferson frames to be unforgivable encroachments on the colonists’ way of life. After reading his long list of King George’s deplorable acts, audience members were to assume that the only logical course of action would to be seceding from the British Empire before King George could violate their rights again. His words inspire rage, distrust for the empire, and plants the seeds of courage for a revolution in his readers.

The Declaration is meant to persuade the colonists to revolt and rally behind the revolution. It literally declares their independence as a political document, inadvertently declares war on the British, and off-handedly declares to King George his subjects’ feelings: that he has failed them as a ruler so much so that they are forced to remove themselves from his domain. Jefferson relied on the audience’s memory of news stories, gossip, or personal experiences of King George’s tyranny as the foundation of the Declaration upon which he lists intolerable acts which may have been unknown by the reader.

My favorite quote in the Declaration of Independence did not come from the Declaration of Independence. Rather, it came from Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration. This quote was removed from the final copy to persuade the Southern states to vote in the continental congress to declare independence. The quote reads: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. His piractical warfare, the opprobium of infidel [sic] powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN [sic] king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN [sic] should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against lives of another.” This powerful, moving statement begs the question: How could the young man who wrote this passionate argument against slavery morph into the old man who not only bought, sold, and owned slaves himself, but enslaved and sold many of his illegitimate children with his house slave, Sally Hemmings? How could a man who so ardently opposed slavery eventually become its greatest defender? These are the questions that can’t be answered by historical evidence, yet, are some of the greatest questions on our nation’s founding.

While the intention of the Declaration of Independence was to establish the colonies as a free country, the document itself was more symbolic. King George was not likely to read an essay detailing his failings, and the Declaration was directed more towards the rest of the world. The audience affects the style, and since King George is not really the audience, Jefferson has no qualms about blatantly insulting him.

Although Thomas Jefferson did not actually write the Constitution or contribute to it in any way because he was in France, a lot of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence made their way into the Constitution. For example, many of the tyrannic actions of King George are later protected against in the Constitution. Jefferson talks about the British failure to hold fair trials, the dissolution of the colonial legislative bodies, quartering of soldiers, taxation without representation, and inhibition of laws benefiting the colonists in any way. These themes’ recurrence in the Constitution proves how much of an impact the Declaration had on the course of history.

Jefferson even includes a reference to Machiavelli (that sly dog) with the line, “the prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant.” Throughout the rest of the essay, King George III is referred to as “king.” This subtle reference appeals to educated people and builds Jefferson’s ethos.

Jefferson uses syllogism in the invention of his piece, “The Declaration of Independence” as a means of justification for revolution in the colonies. He states the major premise, that the people have a right to overthrow an unfair government, then moves to the minor premise, that King George is unfairly ruling over the colonies, and concludes that the American people have a right to independence. It is a simple rhetorical device, but the idea itself that Jefferson presented was crazily unorthodox.

Jefferson frequently references God, whether he refers to the Creator or Divine Providence, to build his ethos. By claiming that God Himself entitles the people to freedom, Jefferson can then continue to justify why this call for freedom is so important.

Although a common occurrence at the time, Jefferson’s seemingly random capitalization is something that stands out to modern readers. He doesn’t seem to follow any rules in standard capitalizing, but rather capitalizes nouns he feels are important to emphasize. His delivery is obviously a print medium, but his use of capitalization draws the reader what Jefferson feels is important.

In 1776, a group of 56 of the most intelligent men were elected by the people to come together and create a statement of separation from England so that these 13 colonies might unite to form their own independent state. This statement was rightfully named the Declaration of Independence. Throughout the years, people within this new country would look back and criticize the Declaration, believing that if it was written to free all people under its jurisdiction, then why did congress allow slavery to continue for almost another hundred years? Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence and a slave owner, was not, in fact, a hypocrite in his seeming to disregard colored people, who at the time made up the entirety of the slave population, when he wrote said declaration.

On the contrary, he was very much thinking of the slaves. Jefferson has mentioned slaves and their potential multiple times in letters to other people, and while owning slaves himself, sought for their freedom as equals. In a letter from Jefferson to one mister David Barrow J., Jefferson says, “I… am truly thankful for the favorable sentiments expressed in it towards myself… The particular subject of the pamphlet you enclosed me was one of early and tender consideration with me,” and “it should never have been out of sight.” The pamphlet Jefferson is mentioning is one regarding the connection of political and religious proceedings, and its regard to the antislavery movement. This letter clearing shows not only the amount of thought Jefferson had put into the concept of slavery, but also how important it is to him as a congressman. When he says, “No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men,” it’s obvious he is on the side of freedom for all, but sometimes society is not ready for such big steps, as explained by Barrow when he wrote, “The mind of the master is to be apprized by reflection, and strengthened by the energies of conscience, against the obstacles of self-interest to an acquiescence in the rights of others; that of the slave is to be prepared by instruction and habit for self-government, and for the honest pursuits of industry and social duty. Both of these courses of preparation require time, and the former must precede the latter.”

Even though Jefferson was indeed a supporter of freedom for slaves, he himself was a slave owner. Being as he was a plantation owner in the southern colony of Virginia, it would be imperative for Jefferson to own slaves on these plantations. He may have been an advocate for their freedom, but certain expectations were placed on him in the areas of production and wealth acclimation for his family. Seeing as he wouldn’t be able to just let the slaves go- slave hunters and collectors would have been on them in seconds- and for the fact that their freedom had a very uncertain future, it would have been pointless to pay them for their work seeing as they would not be able to use any money given. With a roof over their head and food on their tables, it was much easier and safer to keep these slaves, but to keep them as guests would be a social faux pas and much too expensive. So, in exchange for their housing and food, they worked the fields of Jefferson’s plantations.

With the facts that Jefferson has shown to be a supporter of freedom for slaves, and the conditions society was in- which caused the freedom of the slaves to be very tricky and taboo- the answer is clear in this debate. Jefferson was not a hypocrite in his words of the Declaration, but a forward thinker as these words would lead to the beginning of the long fight for equal rights.

One of the main goals for any president is to be able to serve a second term in office. Some presidents succeed in this goal and some falter. There are various factors that contribute to a successful re-election campaign, however this essay will discuss three factors that are arguably the most important contributors in getting a president re-elected. These three elements are military success abroad, constructive relations with Congress and crisis management ability. This essay will also seek to define these factors and analyze them with comparisons across presidencies.

The first factor that is crucial to a re-election campaign is military success abroad. Military success or failure can often change the public’s perception of a president, as they may look weak if they fail and as a result harm their chances of being re-elected. look at what constitutes as military success through the lens of the Iraq war. Casualty sensitivity is a concept in which they discussed, defining it as one’s price sensitivity to the human cost of war. They found that the electorate had a lower casualty sensitivity if military intervention is worth the substantial cost of war. Through surveys, they were also able to find that participants had consistently similar ideas as to what success in Iraq is. The general consensus of a positive outcome for Iraq was the country having ‘a stable and democratic government’, that Iraqis ‘provide for their own security’ and for Iraqis to be able to ‘live peaceful, normal everyday lives’. Reports by and show that a post invasion Iraq has a long way to go before Iraqis can ‘live peaceful, normal everyday lives’. President Bush justified the war on Iraq with the rational that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, however this was proven to be false as Iraq had not conducted biological weapons production research since 1996. With the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and given the fact that the current state of Iraq is far from stable, meaning the justifications for invading Iraq were never met, it calls into question the legitimacy of the war. This came at an electoral cost to President Bush, despite winning the election, research by has shown that Bush suffered politically in states that had the most amount of deaths or wounded personnel per 100,000 people. States like Vermont suffered nearly 8 casualties or wounded per 100,000 and Bush’s percentage of the vote obtained dropped by 2.2%. Had the 2004 US election been closer like the 2000 US election, President Bush could have possibly lost the 2004 US election, with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan playing on the minds of the American electorate. Military success has also played a factor in other Presidencies, namely Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon. Investigates whether war has a detrimental effect for candidates of the party that occupied the White House when the war started. Lyndon B. Johnson, as a result of the electorate’s growing concern over the war in Vietnam, had announced he would not pursue a re-election campaign. When Nixon took over as president, his policy of Vietnamization sought to deescalate the war in Vietnam. Nixon was able to gain re-election to the White House in 1972, in part due to his efforts to decrease the US involvement in the Vietnam War. Across the span of three Presidencies, whether it be President Bush suffering politically in certain states, President Johnson announcing he wouldn’t run for re-election with one of the reasons being the Vietnam War, or President Nixon doing well in his re-election campaign, it is clear that military success is key in a President’s re-election campaign.

The second factor that is key to a re-election campaign is a constructive relationship with Congress. Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which combine with the executive branch and the judicial branch to be a part of the checks and balances system. The checks and balances system uses all three branches to counterbalance the power of the others, preventing tyranny by a minority. As a result, the checks and balances system makes it hard for legislation to be passed unless a party holds a majority or there is a constructive relationship between the legislative branch and the executive. Presidents need to have a constructive relationship with Congress so that they have the ability to pass legislation they promised. If they do not have a constructive relationship with Congress, they will not be able to fulfil their campaign promises, which will harm their chances of being re-elected as the electorate may feel as if they have been lied to. explore the early stages of the Obama presidency and make predictions as to how effective he might be in his second term. In the first years in office, he was able to win 93 and 86% of House votes and 75% of Senate votes. Compared to other presidents who had majority control, Obama did significantly better, with other presidents averaging 77.5% in the House and 73.9% in the senate. Moreover, this resulted in a flurry of significant legislation being passed, including economic stimulus, financial industry reform, health care reform, tax reform and the repeal of the ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’ policy. With all these reforms it is clear that in the dawn of his presidency, Obama had a constructive relationship with Congress which allowed him to be able to carry out significant changes, that wouldn’t have been possible with an adversarial relationship with Congress. Obama was able to use the fact that he had conducted numerous reforms as a tool to convince the electorate to re-elect him, which wouldn’t have been a possibility without a constructive relationship with Congress. The American people saw Obama’s success and subsequently he was re-elected. This clearly shows how crucial a constructive relationship with Congress can have, as it can be used a tool for re-election and it allows for a president to be productive. Whilst Obama showed the power of having a constructive relationship with Congress, Trump showed the opposite. With him inheriting an increasingly partisan and polarized Congress, Trump was not the candidate for bridging the gap between the Democrats and Republicans. Reasons such as Republican incohesion, partisan polarization and the fact that there was little pressure on the Democrats to work with Trump, causing him to have an unproductive relationship with Congress. As a result, Trump failed to secure Congress’s support on his major policies. This amongst other reasons could have contributed to Trump not being re-elected, as during the 2nd half of his presidency, Democrats held the house making it impossible for Trump to be able to implement legislation. The examples of Obama and Trump show that having a constructive relationship with Congress can change the outlook the electorate has on a presidency, whether they view you as a productive president or vice versa. This then effects a candidate’s chances of being re-elected and hence why a constructive relationship with Congress is one of the most important factors to a successful re-election campaign.

The third and final factor in a successful re-election campaign is crisis management ability. During times of crisis, citizens of the US look towards their president for leadership. How presidents deal with times of crisis can ultimately determine their perception and can certainly affect their chances of re-election. explores President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and identifies a number of failures such as slashing bureaucracy, which got rid of departments that could have been utilized to fight the pandemic. Also noted Trump’s conflict with his staff members, with him ignoring advice. A report by revealed the true extent of Trump’s failure to get a grip of the pandemic, with the authors finding that 40% of the coronavirus deaths could have been preventable. In addition to this, the electorates opinion of Trump’s handling of Covid-19 has been hovering in the mid to late 50s for several months now. With nearly half of the deaths in the US from Covid-19 being preventable, and a majority of the US people disagreeing with the way Trump handled the Covid pandemic, it comes as no shock as to why Trump lost the election.

Overall, this essay has described three factors that are pivotal to a re-election campaign. The first of which was military success abroad. Military success can provide a good appreciation for whether a president is a good leader. Failure abroad can not only diminish the possibility of a second term, but also tarnish your reputation as the electorate will pin the deaths of military personnel on a president if they start to question the legitimacy or the necessity of a conflict. The second factor that was explored was a constructive relationship with Congress. A constructive relationship between the legislative branch and the executive allows for legislation to be passed with ease, allowing campaign promises to be fulfilled. This is handy come election time as the incumbent president can leverage this to his advantage, since heshe delivered the electorate what was promised to them and may feel inclined to vote for them a second time. The final component that was considered to be one of the three most important factors in a re-election campaign was crisis management ability. Just like in times of war, a president’s handling of a crisis can make or break their reputation. Poor handling of a crisis can lead to the electorate thinking of a president as weak and hence will not vote for them. On the opposite spectrum, the electorate would re-elect a president who handles a crisis well as it shows strong leadership skills, a quality desired in an ‘ideal president’. All three of these factors combine to become the most important factors in a president’s re-election campaign.

Politic

Iran releases American Hostages (January 20, 1981) 52 Americans were taken hostage from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 1979 and were finally released on the day of Reagan’s inauguration. (See Prominent Issues of the Election C for more)

British House of Commons (July 2, 1982) Reagan spoke about how there is hope for the future and how we can be optimistic. He said democracy can work and is working. Hence the quote: (we are at the) “end of a bloody century” He then went on to relate his beliefs that no matter what Communist leaders say (especially the Soviet Union) every person, no matter where they are,wants freedom. Then he said that all our enemies should know that if it comes to it we will fight for our freedom though we would rather solve problems peacefully. He ended his speech with saying we have gone through the worst and it’s only going to get better from here.

America Invaded Grenada (October 25, 1983) (Code Name: Operation Urgent Fury)- Grenada’s leader Maurice Bishop (a Marxist) started having a friendly relationship with Russia. In 1983, Bernard Coard (another Marxist) had Bishop assassinated and now he had control of Grenada. There was a lot of violence because some people didn’t like the new government When a threat was posed to American Nationals in Grenada, Reagan sent troops in to save the Americans and fight the Marxist . Eventually Coard’s government collapsed and a new government that met the American standards was set up.

Reagan makes his Evil Empire Speech (March 8, 1983)-he spoke to the National Association of Evangelicals. Reagan started by saying that the relationship between U.S. and Russia was not okay and they needed to talk about limiting nuclear weapons (in both America and the Soviet Union), everything was far from fine. His “Evil Empire” speech focused mainly on the evil empire, Russia. He said that fighting on the battlefield( this time) isn’t gonna solve any problems. When Reagan stood up and said straight out Russia is an Evil Empire, the relationship between the two countries changed forever. His speech continued by saying no matter how good you think Communism is for your country, not one ounce of goodness is coming from it. (He also stated that he wanted to make abortion illegal.)

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (March 23, 1983) Reagan proposed his idea of the SDI which was a defense systems against incoming nuclear missiles. At this time, Reagan was concerned about the Soviet’s advanced nuclear capabilities and was trying to protect the United States from nuclear missiles. This Defense Initiative, used both ground and spaced based systems to block missiles. (Part of the goal of the SDI was to make Russia nervous and drive them to remove their weapons out of fear)

The SDI was not accepted among Americans. People felt it was unrealistic to create such an advanced technology in space and therefore nicknamed the plan “Star Wars.” Congress was also concerned about the high cost of the project. Eventually in 1991, the SDI was renamed the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). Its goals were minimized to only protect against smaller attacks.

Attack on U.S. embassy (April 18, 1983)- a suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives into the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed, 16 of whom were American.. At this time the U.S. had troops in Beirut to help keep stability during the Lebanese Civil War. Many people wanted the U.S. out of Beirut. One group of people who felt this way was the Islamic Jihad Organization, who claimed responsibility for the embassy attack.

Bombing of Lebanon Barracks (October 23, 1983). Lebanon was fighting a major civil war. US troops had been stationed in Lebanon in order to help the Lebanese government that would be friendlier to the US and Israel. They tried to maintain peace and order within the country. In 1983, suicide bombers attacked the US Marine barracks, killing 241 men. This attack made it more difficult for the US to maintain peace. Two years later, Lebanese government asked for all the american troops to be removed and Reagan complied. This attack was a huge blow to America and particularly president Reagan. These events changed his administration policy and he never sent anymore troops back to Lebanon.

Reagan Doctrine (1985)- Reagan wanted to stop the Soviet movements in other countries (to make sure communism doesn’t spread and to try to end the cold war) and promote capitalism. The Reagan Doctrine allowed him to give help to anti- communist groups in places where there were communist governments, such as: Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Reagan Doctrine was especially helpful for Nicaragua. At the time the Somoza regime had been overthrown by a group called the Sandinistas. At first the Sandinistas seemed ok, they created programs to improve the lives of the poor, but then the Sandinista leaders started taking away basic human rights. In addition, America saw the Sandinista revolution as a act of possible move towards communism. As a result of this, America cut off all economic aid that Nicaragua was receiving from them. As things got worse in Nicaragua, Reagan secretly gave help to the Nicaraguan contras (rebels) who wanted to overthrow the Sandinista government. Reagan also gave money to help the contras train in military.

Geneva Summit (November 19 and 20, 1985) The first meeting between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev (leader of the Soviet Union), took place in Geneva, Switzerland. The purpose was to discuss refraining usage of nuclear weapons, as well as forming a partnership between the Soviet Union and the US. Although the summit didn’t amount to anything, the leaders held nice conversations and established a relationship.

The Reykjavík Summit (October 11-12, 1986) This was the second meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev and was held in Höfði, Reykjavík. The two leaders discussed removing nuclear arms from Reykjavík. They negotiated for many hours and were almost able to dismantle all nuclear weapons from both countries. Although Reagan and Gorbachev couldn’t come to an agreement on anything, this meeting was considered a turning point of the cold war.

Operation El Dorado Canyon (April 15,1986). Libya threatened to send nuclear missiles to America and committed a series of terrorist attacks against Americans. Reagan retaliated by carrying out a series of air strikes in Tripoli and Benghazi. During the air strikes Reagan addressed the nation and said: “When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond in self-defense. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again.” This operation silenced the earlier threats of Muammar Gaddafi, leader of Libya.

“Tear down this wall!”(June 12, 1987) Reagan made a speech while visiting West Berlin. He addressed the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, and requested the removal the Berlin Wall, which divided eastern and western Germany. The wall was built by the Soviets after WWII when they acquired the land in eastern Germany. It was extremely significant since it separated the communist Soviets from the rest of Europe. The wall was heavily guarded, preventing people from escaping. Many families from the East and West of Germany lost all contact and were unable to see each other for many years.

Iran-Contra Affair (August 20, 1987- March 4, 1987)- Reagan secretly traded weapons with terrorists in Lebanon who were holding American hostages. Funds from this trade agreement were also used to help rebels in Nicaragua (who were against the Nicaraguan government). People were very upset at Reagan about this. He was doing secret things without telling the people, as well as aiding terrorists!

13. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces signed (December 8, 1987) (Its real name: Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles) Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed it in Washington D.C. It abolished all nuclear and conventional missiles that were 500-1,000 kilometers (short-ranged) and 1,000–5,500 km (intermediate- ranged). This treaty did not apply to sea-launched missiles.

Major Conflict

Cold War

The Cold War had a major effect on Reagan’s presidency. Communism went against everything Reagan stood for and therefore he did everything he could to stop it. The Cold War started in 1945 after World War II and finally ended when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. It wasn’t a war that was fought with guns and armies, but was a competition between the world’s two most powerful countries. They competed for the strongest military, the most advanced technology, and who could gain the most power.

Many times in his presidency Reagan expressed his hatred for communism (see “Evil Empire Speech” Foreign Policies #3). Reagan felt that America should have a strong military for many reasons. One reason was that he wanted to be viewed as the “higher up country”, the one with more strength. He did this by having a stronger military than the Soviet Union. He also felt that when he would negotiate with the Soviet Union (which he did) he’d be able to get what he wanted more easily if he had the “upper hand” (the stronger military). When Reagan proposed the SDI, (see Strategic Defense Initiative Foreign Policies #5 for more) Russia became a nervous (even though the SDI relied on technology America didn’t even have, it did exactly what Reagan wanted it to do: make Russia afraid) This was another thing that gave America an edge on negotiating.

When Reagan increased defense spending, an arms race was created between the U.S and Soviet Union. As each country tried to have the bigger, better military, more and more money was spent. America’s economy was able to handle it, the Soviets wasn’t. Their economy was severely damaged because of their increased defense spending.

In 1985, a new communist leader came to power, Mikhail Gorbachev, he was very good for the Soviet Union and wanted to make his country a better place, he wanted to make his country’s political system democratic.

Reagan liked Gorbachev and they formed a close relationship and made many treaties together. (for example:Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles). Reagan felt strongly about communism. He came into his presidency and told America he saw a problem with the Soviet Union. He made treaties, he negotiated, he met with leaders. He did everything in his power to bring communism down. Two years later, the wall came down. Did Reagan bring the wall down himself? He definitely had a major part in in it. The Cold War shows Reagan in a good light. He accomplished something very hard and he did it in the best way possible without killing people. Where would the Soviet Union be if Reagan hadn’t accomplished what he did? Where would America be? Reagan accomplished many great things and the way he dealt with the Soviet Union was his greatest feat.

Intro

Thomas Jefferson, a figure whose legacy is as monumental as it is complex, remains a pivotal character in the tapestry of American history. His life and contributions, a blend of brilliance and contradiction, offer a unique lens through which we can explore the foundational years of the United States. This essay delves into Jefferson’s multifaceted identity: a Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the third President of the United States. It also addresses the paradoxes that mark his legacy, such as his staunch advocacy for liberty and individual rights amidst the troubling backdrop of his own slave ownership.

Jefferson’s intellectual contributions, from his ideas on education, religion, and governance to his pursuits in architecture and agriculture, reveal a man of diverse interests and profound thought. This essay examines how these contributions have shaped and sometimes conflicted with the ideals and realities of American society. Furthermore, it considers Jefferson’s enduring impact on the political and cultural landscape of the United States, probing into how his visions and contradictions continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about freedom, democracy, and human rights. Jefferson’s story is not just a chapter in history. It is a continuing dialogue about the complexities of human character and the ongoing journey of a nation striving towards its founding ideals.

100 Words Essay about Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, a central figure in American history, significantly shaped the nation’s early development. As the third President and the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy for democracy and individual rights was groundbreaking. Jefferson was a polymath interested in various fields, from architecture to agriculture, influencing many aspects of American culture and policy. Contradictions, particularly his ownership of slaves in contrast to his pro-liberty rhetoric, however, mar his legacy. His complex character and lasting impact on American ideals, governance, and societal values make him a figure of enduring interest and debate in understanding the nation’s history and identity.

250 Words Essay about Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, a name synonymous with the founding ethos of the United States, stands as a figure of both reverence and controversy in American history. Jefferson’s contributions to the nation’s foundation are indisputable as the third President and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. His vision and eloquence in articulating the principles of liberty and democracy set a course for the young nation, emphasizing individual rights and self-governance that continue to resonate today.

Jefferson’s intellectual breadth was remarkable. He ventured into various domains, including philosophy, politics, education, architecture, agriculture, and even paleontology. His establishment of the University of Virginia is a testament to his belief in the power of education and its role in sustaining a democratic society. Furthermore, Jefferson’s architectural designs, including his home at Monticello, reflect his fascination with innovation and aesthetics, leaving a lasting imprint on American architectural style.

Contradictions, however, severely tarnished Jefferson’s legacy. His proclamation that “all men are created equal” starkly contrasts with his practice of slave ownership. This paradox lies at the heart of much of the debate surrounding his legacy. It highlights the complex interplay between the ideals of freedom and the realities of racial inequality in American history.

Jefferson’s influence extends beyond his lifetime, as his ideas and actions spark discussions about democracy, freedom, and equality. His story is not merely a chapter in a history book but a continuous narrative, challenging and inspiring each generation to reflect on the principles upon which the United States was built and how they apply in contemporary society. Jefferson remains a figure of enduring fascination, embodying the American experience’s promise and contradictions.

400 Words Essay about Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, an iconic figure in American history, holds a complex and multifaceted place in the nation’s collective memory. As the third President of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson’s influence on the nation’s early development was profound. His contributions to American political thought, particularly his advocacy for individual rights, liberty, and democracy, have left an indelible mark on the country’s fabric.

Jefferson was a polymath born on April 13, 1743, in Virginia, whose interests and expertise spanned various fields. He was an architect, philosopher, educator, inventor, and agriculturalist. His architectural designs, including the Virginia State Capitol and his home at Monticello, are celebrated for their innovative use of classical styles and remain influential today. As an educator, he founded the University of Virginia, emphasizing the importance of education in sustaining a healthy republic.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the size of the United States, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which deepened the country’s understanding of the vast western territories, were two significant accomplishments during Jefferson’s presidency, which lasted from 1801 to 1809. However, his tenure was also characterized by challenges, such as the Embargo Act of 1807, which had mixed results and controversial implications.

Despite his advocacy for human rights and liberty, Jefferson’s legacy is deeply entwined with the paradox of his slave ownership. He held hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime and fathered children with Sally Hemings, an enslaved woman at Monticello. This glaring contradiction between his ideals and personal practices epitomizes the complex moral and ethical dilemmas faced by the young American nation regarding slavery and racial inequality.

Jefferson’s influence on American political ideology and culture cannot be overstated. His writings, particularly the Declaration of Independence, continue to be a source of inspiration and debate. He envisioned America as a land of equality and opportunity, a beacon of democracy and freedom. Yet, the contradictions in his life and the legacy of slavery and racial injustice in America challenge us to critically evaluate his contributions against the backdrop of these enduring issues.

Thomas Jefferson remains a figure of both admiration and contention. His life and work provoke ongoing discussions about the nature of American democracy, the contradictions inherent in human nature, and the complex interplay between ideals and reality. His story is not just a narrative of the past but a continuing dialogue that shapes our understanding of American identity, values, and the ongoing quest for a more perfect union.

500 Words Essay about Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, is a figure whose legacy casts a long shadow over American history. Jefferson’s profound intellectual pursuits and complex personal life, which date back to his birth in Shadwell, Virginia, on April 13, 1743, have had a significant impact on the formation and identity of the country.

Jefferson’s political philosophy, deeply rooted in Enlightenment ideals, championed individual liberty, republicanism, and the separation of church and state. His eloquent articulation of these principles in the Declaration of Independence (1776) laid the ideological foundation for the new nation, defining the American ethos of equality and freedom. This document remains seminal in understanding American identity and its democratic aspirations.

Jefferson’s career as a politician was notable for its significant accomplishments. His tenure as Secretary of State under George Washington and as Vice President under John Adams was marked by a growing partisan divide, leading to the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party, which he co-founded. As President from 1801 to 1809, Jefferson’s most notable accomplishment was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the size of the United States and set a precedent for American expansionism. He also championed the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which expanded the nation’s geographical and scientific knowledge of the vast western territories.

Beyond politics, Jefferson was a Renaissance man with wide-ranging interests. His contributions to architecture are notable, with designs such as his home, Monticello, and the University of Virginia showcasing his innovative use of classical styles. His passion for agriculture, particularly the cultivation of native plants, was part of his broader vision for an agrarian-based American economy and society. As a proponent of education, Jefferson’s establishment of the University of Virginia reflected his belief in the power of knowledge and its essential role in sustaining a free society.

However, Jefferson’s legacy is complicated by glaring contradictions, particularly regarding slavery. A slave owner himself, he held conflicting views on the institution. While he publicly advocated for the gradual emancipation of slaves and condemned the slave trade, he failed to free most of his slaves. He maintained a long-term relationship with Sally Hemings, an enslaved woman at Monticello with whom he fathered several children. This dichotomy between his ideals and actions presents a troubling aspect of his legacy, reflecting the broader contradictions in American history regarding race and equality.

Jefferson’s intellectual legacy extends beyond his immediate contributions. His ideas on religious freedom, education, and governance have continued influencing American thought and policy. His vision of a nation founded on democratic principles and individual rights remains a reference point in contemporary political discourse.

So, Thomas Jefferson’s life and work embody the complexities of the American experience. His contributions to the nation’s founding principles and his intellectual pursuits have left an enduring impact on American culture and ideology. Yet, his personal contradictions, particularly regarding slavery, challenge us to critically evaluate his legacy within the broader context of American history and ideals. Jefferson’s story, therefore, is not just a tale of the past but a continuous dialogue that shapes our understanding of the nation’s ongoing journey toward realizing its foundational principles of liberty, equality, and democracy.