Most historians detest the leadership of President Dwight Eisenhower mainly because of his character. He led Americans in fighting the First World War successfully. Many people in the US were happy with the way Eisenhower handled things but scholars accused him for handling the matters of the state with many consultations.
In fact, an opinion poll conducted among scholars showed that he was the least ranked head of state in the 21st century. He could only be compared to the 19th century leaders even though many things had changed socio-economically and politically. Eisenhower was a leader with withdrawn character, implying that he delegated most of presidential duties to the subordinates.
People around him made most policies while he was busy popularizing his image. In the current international system, it is very difficult for leaders to adopt Eisenhower’s leadership style. The conditions that existed at the time allowed the head of state to take a back seat in policy formulation.
By then, the US employed isolationist policy where the state could not intervene to restore peace and normalcy in regions facing troubles. The state was more concerned about national interests (Olson, & Randy, 1998). Eisenhower was a trusted public figure who gained support through non-political roles. The head of state was preoccupied with the issue of national security to an extent of delegating important roles to his juniors.
It can be observed that F Kennedy ruled at the time when the international system had developed into something complex. The international system at the time was characterized by tension, wars and conflicts. Each state was interested in its own affairs.
The international system was characterized by bi-polarity implying that there were two centers of power. Power was distributed between the two poles that is, the US and the USSR. By then, the US used all available means to win the confidence of various states. The US wanted other states to adopt capitalism and drop the propositions of communism.
During Kennedy’s time, the US adopted interventionist foreign policies. The US could intervene militarily in case national interests were at risk. For instance, the US intervened militarily in Vietnam to help the South, which was under threat from Minh’s forces (Moss, 2009).
The USSR collaborated with Minh to impose communist ideas to people. During Kennedy’s leadership, the Cold War was a major problem. He decided not to invade Cuba after analyzing the situation carefully. The two powers that is, the US and the USSR were mutually assured of destruction since both of them possessed intercontinental ballistic missiles. Such weapons were placed in Cuba facing the US.
Through Kennedy’s wisdom, Khurushchev agreed to negotiate with Americans over the Cuban missile crisis. Through analysis, it can be observed that Kennedy injected youthful ideas to the American foreign policy. He introduced space program, which was aimed at taking the first man to the moon. He also supported various programs including the Peace Corps mission.
It can be concluded that, the global environment affected the leadership styles of the two leaders. Eisenhower could easily delegate presidential responsibilities to juniors since the system was multi-polar. There were many centers of power including Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Italy.
The role of the head of state was majorly to formulate internal policies that affected local citizens. During Kennedy’s regime, the system had changed completely. The system was full of tensions and existed according to the Hobbestian state of nature where each state is concerned with national interests. It can be observed that the international system affected the leadership styles of various American presidents. This is expected to persist.
References
Moss, G. (2009). Vietnam: An American Ordeal (6th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Olson, J., & Randy, R. (1998). My Lai: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford.
The purpose of the article is to petition the United States President to take decisive step in the use of atomic bomb against Japan in the prevailing war. The article attempts to explain reasons why the United States should conclude the war with Japan within the shortest time possible because of the humanitarian crisis associated with the conflict. Besides, the article reiterates that the American public would not be satisfied with the use of atomic bomb in the war as evident from the opinion poll that was carried out sometimes back.
The article does not have a clear or outright thesis statement in the introductory paragraph. However, it is quite categorical in claiming that the President who is also the Commander-in-Chief should come out clearly on whether atomic bombs should be used in the war against Japan or not. Nonetheless, the article petitions the President not to allow bombing of Japan’s cities.
The paper begins by a short introductory paragraph that explains the nature of warfare discoveries that may jeopardize the safety and overall wellbeing of American citizens in future. It then offers a piece of advice to the President of the United States on why he should take a stand on using atomic bombs.
The article then offers a short background of the petitioners and why they are presenting this petition to the President. The article then explains the circumstances that would allow or necessitate the use of atomic bombs.
The petition highlights the undesirable and destructive effects of atomic bombs and the entire course of the war between the US and Japan. Finally, the article concludes by emphasizing the need of the President to play his role as the Commander-in-Chief in endorsing the war and use of atomic bombs.
The structure of the petition article is logical although it lacks a smooth transition from one idea to another. Most of the issues presented in the article have been repeated and overemphasized. Nonetheless, the ideas make sense since the information presented in the article can be well understood by the readers.
It is definite that although the structure of the petition article lacks smooth transition, it nevertheless assists the author to meet the purpose of the message presented in the article because the content of the article is coherent enough.
The author of the article seems to have used catchphrases in form of several exhortations and emphasis as part of the writing style. For instance, the author insists that the President should come forth as the Commander-in-Chief and declare his position on the on-going war between the two countries.
Both the introduction and conclusion of the petition article have been brought out clearly. For instance, the beginning paragraphs highlight the warfare discoveries that the United States has engaged in for decades now. It then points out the on-going war between Japan and the US and whether atomic bombs should be used or not.
On the same note, the concluding paragraph reiterates why the President should take charge as the Commander-In-Chief and renounce the war or the use of atomic bombs. Nonetheless, it may be quite cumbersome for the reader to clearly identify where the conclusion of the article begins because the body and the concluding paragraphs are not vividly separated in terms of transition of ideas. The main strength of the concluding line is that it summarizes the purpose of the article, that is, petition to the US P resident on the on-going war.
Every institution either governmental or privately owned has bureaucratic procedures to be followed as stipulated by the constitution. Bureaucracy is the procedures or actions followed within a chain of command; it defines how offices are set in terms of authority. It is noted that, bureaucracies have diverse skillful persons with the capacity to organize a great function or event.
As a chief bureaucrat, the president has many tools at disposal capable of influencing and controlling bureaucracies. Powers on budget, appointments and executive commands are some of the tool used by the presidents to influence bureaus. Offices of the President, congresses, parliaments and judiciaries are some of the institutions that influence bureaucracy.
In comparison to other tools, power of appointment is considered as the primary tool to a president for manipulation of bureaus. In many states, the chief executive has the mandate to appoint persons that will work as his subordinate. As the executive boss, he has the power to appoint government and other institution’s top officials as stipulated in the constitution.
It is regarded as a stronger tool because of its vast influence and manipulation on bureau activities and performance. Considering executive appointment powers, a president will hire persons who are loyal and submissive to him. Consequently, many appointees will perform their duties with presidential interests in mind. This may limit the use of executive orders by the fact that most crucial positions are under presidential supervision with submissive employees.
In comparing setbacks, executive orders create governmental controversies while executive appointment may result to employment of unqualified or unskilled personnel in crucial positions.
In addition, unqualified presidential appointees do not last long in office due to unprofessional conduct resulting in underperformance in bureaus. Power of appointment is far much stronger than other tools; this is because control, directives and limited monitoring will automatically be at place as compared to executive orders where presidential interests are done only when orders are issued.
Although in many state parliaments or congresses are given the basic mandate to exercise budgetary activities, presidents also do have some budgetary powers. The chief executive can decide to delay his consent concerning the budget consequently stagnating budgetary activities.
Additionally, the president has the authority to limit or increase fiscal expenditure on different institutions or bureaus. In comparison to effects caused by executive orders, the president may reduce the amount of expenditure thus inactivating organizational activities. Concerning their negative aspect, budgetary powers may act as an avenue for the president to punish some organization by minimizing their budgetary expenditure while executive orders may result to employment of unqualified personnel in vital positions.
The most effective tool
Basing my argument on effects caused by the tools and their influence on bureau, appointment power is the most effective presidential tool. In fact under normal circumstances when you are appointed by an employer, one thing is that you will have to be submissive, same applies to presidential appointees.
When comparing the tools based on the level of influence, appointment powers has greater influence to an extent of surpassing the others. For example executive orders may not be necessary to persons appointed by the president. Furthermore, it gives the president more authority to control, manipulate and also directs the organizational activities making it more effective.
Effects of presidents on bureaucratic performance
In the event that these presidential tools are put into practice, they create immense influence on bureaucratic performances. Many presidents use these tools to manipulate bureau so as to suit their political and monetary interests at the expense of bureaucratic performance.
Considering presidential appointment as a tool, unskilled or unqualified personnel may hold vital positions just for the reason that they are loyal to the president. Such a bureau will suffer a great deal especially in key position where skills and professionalism is needed in practice. Bureau will not only fail to uphold professionalism but also conduct its activities to suit the interest of the president especially when his job is at stake.
In circumstances where presidential executive orders are in execution, many activities of the bureau will be done as par the president’s directives, especially when addressing his subordinates.
Bureaus may suffer extensively, especially when the president’s directives are based on personal interest and not performance. By use of budgetary powers, a president can make an organization dormant with the aim of punishing them. He may decide to either delay a budget or reduce the amount of expenditure on an agency thus making it dormant. This affects an agency’s performance.
Even though chief executives can use these tools to influence activities of a bureau in order to gain political or personal interests, it is possible to limit them for the sake of bureaucratic performance. In some countries, before any action on these tools, approval must be done by a supreme body.
In addition, the activities done are extensively monitored for the sake of bureau development. This maintains bureau’s performance at its peak whether the tools are being used or not. In conclusion, the degree of bureau’s influence by presidents depends on the system of governance and the laws behind the tool. In addition, the performance of a bureau is also determined by presidential policies, some presidents uphold policies that are bureau friendly while other only care about their interests.
In the history of the American governance, different Vice Presidents have held different powers with some being powerful and influential than others. This has caused a debate in the country regarding the source of the VP powers. The argument has been whether the power is in the VP office or the sitting president decides to share his/her powers with the vice president.
This calls for the need to explore this situation and determine the source and nature of this power. This is a proposal for a research to dig deeper in this issue to determine and establish the powers of the Vice President in the government of the United States.
Rationale for the Study
Different vice presidents in the American government have portrayed varying powers with some being extremely influential and powerful than others. With the current Constitution, the powers vested in the office are clearly stated. However, history shows that some VPs have shown enormous powers under different sitting presidents.
For example, Dick Cheney and Walter Mondale are two famous vice presidents who had enormous VP powers and made many decisions during the time[1]. On the other hand, Vice President Bush had minimal powers during the Ronald Reagan Administration.
These observations therefore call for a research study to explore the unique powers of different vice presidents in the history of the United States. The most important thing is to explore how the Vice Presidents in the country receive and exercise such powers.
Using the examples of Dick Cheney, Walter Mondale, and Bush, the study will analyze the source of the VP power in different governments led by different presidents[2]. This will establish if the sitting presidents decide to grant their powers to the Vice Presidents or the office has such powers.
Research Questions
The research will present meaningful solutions to this question: Does the Vice Presidency have power because the office has grown or the sitting president decides to tender power to the Vice President? The study will explain the Constitutional powers of the VP office and determine if the office has grown to become powerful or whether the sitting presidents willingly share power with the VPs.
Discussions
In this study, the key perspectives of the research question is whether the presidents decide to share their powers with the vice presidents, or whether the office of vice president have grown to become powerful within the last few decades. If that is so, the study will determine why they have been differences in power possessions by deferent VPs in the American history[3].
The findings will therefore explain why some VPs in the United States have shown enormous powers while others have played minor roles in governing and making decision during their respective terms in office.
Conclusion
With increased VP power, chances are high that the office might offer enormous challenge to the power of the president. There are implications such as war decisions made by the vice president that might have enormous impacts on the power of the president. This has been a source of debate regarding whether presidents should grant their VPs powers, or whether the VP should be granted with such powers. The research study will discuss this issue in details and present the way forward for better governance in the United States.
Bibliography
Goldstein, Joel. “The Rising Power of the Modern Vice Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 10, no. 11. (July 2008); 34-49.
Jillson, Cal. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. New York: Taylor and Francis Press, 2005.
Wilson, James. American Government: Brief Version. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2011.
Footnotes
Joel Goldstein. “The Rising Power of the Modern Vice Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 10, no. 11. (July 2008); p. 49.
Cal Jillson. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. (New York: Taylor and Francis Press, 2005), p. 32.
James Wilson. American Government: Brief Version. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2011), p. 83.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the few American presidents whose administration was characterized by irony. Ironically during Jefferson ended up giving his presidency to his greatest rival. He was elected into office in 1800, and that was his first term. Although Jefferson had spent years in researching on how to be a principled leader in governance, his administration had a lot of controversies.
He and James Madison opposed the enactment of the alien and sedition act. They believed that the act was intended to intimidate and suppress the democratic –republicans rather than the enemies of United States of America. According to Jefferson the Sedition was the source of revolution and was leading the country into war.
In his quest for declaration of independence, one of Jefferson’s controversial decisions was Louisiana Purchase. It is imperative to note that Jefferson was very much interested in the west. According to him, expansion towards the west was the county’s future. The purchase was done during the Napoleonic war in France.
This was a significant land acquisition from France which was almost double the size of United States of America. His negotiations to purchase the land were faced with criticism. To a large extent, Jefferson’s actions were regarded as contradicting especially because of the inexistence of contrary a clear Constitutional authority. He forced the congress to sign the treaty so that he could seize the opportunity. He acted without consulting the relevant authorities.
The land was finally not secured by the Americans, leading to Jefferson to impose an arms embargo to the new states that had acquired the western hemisphere. This proved difficult for France to recover from the effects of Napoleonic war. When Jefferson was sworn into office in 1802, he preached peace and reconciliation, but his political program was biased. Jefferson’s main objective after getting into power was to abolish the federalist’s system of government.
Additionally, Thomas Jefferson increased the controversy by making controversial appointments, as well as releasing prisoners who had been detained under the alien and sedition acts. He went ahead to repeal the judicial act which saw the removal of almost all the ‘Adam’s judges’.
The removal of these judges influenced the Supreme Court to make a quick judgment on the case involving Marbury and Madison. It is also worth noting that the repeal gave power to the judges of the Supreme Court to travel all over the country so as to serve as circuit judges. Jefferson is known for using a large amount of government revenue to pay down his Hamilton debt.
As the governor of Virginia, Jefferson had proposed the removal of Cherokee and Shawnee tribes from the areas that were west of Mississippi river. When he became president, he advocated for military removal of these tribes from the west part of the United States. This was ironical since the United States had signed a treaty with the Cherokee nation. Expelling the Cherokee people from Georgia was a violation of the treat signed between the United States and the Cherokee nation.
Jefferson also owned any slaves. This showed how Jefferson was a racist. His racist views were also part of his culture. One would wonder whether Jefferson was evil or was slavery not useless after all. Although he viewed slavery as harmful both to the slave and the master, it’s ironically that he has many slaves himself.
Towards the end of his second term, Thomas Jefferson had almost given James Madison full responsibility of his powers. This was due to his presidential blunders he had done in the American history. According to Jefferson, Madison was the only person who could fulfill his political goals. When Madison won the elections, Thomas Jefferson resigned from active politics.
The U.S. national security strategy can only be viewed from two perspectives, the international strategic environment and the domestic political environment. The international strategic environment particularly identifies threats to U.S interests and exploitable opportunities that will enable the U.S achieve its interests.1
The domestic political environment consists of the US democratic institutions and other domestic political contexts such as the media, interest groups and the public opinion. The national security planning is mainly the responsibility of the executive branch under the chairmanship of the president, The National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The defense of the nation still requires a well planed policy and collaboration between the president and congress. As much as the planning process has improved in recent years, still further reforms are required to clear out issues on national security planning and budgeting, relating military operation with available resources and stabilizing the military budgets process.2
This paper discuses the division of labor between the president and congress in formulation and conduct of U.S national security policy, looking into the current balance of power between the two branches and how the power has shifted since 9/11.
Division of labor between the president and congress in the formulation and conduct of U.S. national security policy
The constitutional framework as regards to national security process balances out power across the two institutions. The legislative and executives are envisioned as two coequal institutions. Each has been empowered equally to prevent any of the branches dominating over the other.
These constitutional foundations are what empower the president and congress. These two key democratic institutions work together to formulate and carry out national security policy.3
There are two main tools that shape the executive branches output to a more functioning administration. These include the use of appointing authority and the White House staff. In Article II, Section 2, the president is empowered to appoint the departmental and agency heads with the federal government.4 The presence of these political appointees results into a significant influence throughout many policy making processes.5
Roles and functions of each branch
The president being the diplomatic in chief and primary foreign policy maker of the United States, he is held responsible for defining the security policies and ensuring the national security of the nation. The constitution empowers the president to wage wars as a commander in chief while the congress has the power to declare wars and fund them.
The congress has constitutional mandate to as well as political interest in national security matters. The public together with the congress look to the president for leadership in issues of national security.6
The president is the central focus of attention and power in national security issues. The president’s function is to lead formulation of the national security policies through assessing threats and resources and providing strategy to meet those threats.7
The institutional framework between the two institutions reflects a clear understanding on their institutional competencies. The congress has been granted important powers to ensure it has a significant role in the conduct of national security policy. Its institutional framework prevents it from moving more quickly on matters pertaining to national security.8
The legislation plays a critical role of clearing what has been agreed between the house and senate after each body has been subjected to the media and the public’s opinion. Congress as a branch of the government remains to be more accountable to the public.
The executive branch is designed to make speedy actions that at most ties should be secretly conducted without much public and media intervention on foreign and security policy. The institution is designed to act decisively in a crisis situation.9
Share of power
As per the constitutional provision, the main purpose of the congress is to make laws. The executive branch enforces the laws through the president and various executive offices. The president and the congress have to work together in order to ensure proper policies are put in place and correctly affected.
The constitution of the United States divides the war power of the federal government between the executive and legislative branches. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces while congress has the power to declare war and rise and support the armed forces.10
The war powers resolution offers well laid procedures that define the extent to which the president or the congress can deploy U.S armed forces into hostile areas abroad.11
Current overall balance of power between the two branches
As much as the executive plays a leading role in the federal bureaucracy, the intensive design of the various departments and agencies are defined in the congregational statute. As much as this is not mentioned in the constitution, congress plays an oversight role, continuously checking on the executive. The congress keenly watches the administration ensuring that all laws are properly interpreted and executed.
However, the congress has a significant say in war related issues. There are clear directions that split the power to declare war from the power to direct military forces during war to ensure that the president is not able to make war alone.12
How the balance shifted since 9/11
Since the 9/11 attacks on the Unite States, the definition of national security has been expanded and now encompasses threat to terrorism and cyberspace. As much as the policies being implemented currently don’t feature in the constitution, it is assumed that the president has the general responsibility of the national security.
Since 9/11, the country has been forced to review many of its traditional processes of national governance.13 The new security environment which is majorly defined by war on terrorism calls for reexamination of congress war powers.14
Conclusion
The conflict between the congress and the president on who has the power to commission a war can only be defined according to the constitution. The president being the chair of the executive plays a leading role in the policy making process and should act in his position as commander in chief as stipulated by the constitution but still under watch by the congress.
Bibliography
Born, Hans. International intelligence corporation and accountability. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.
Borone, Andrew. The U.S. intelligence community. New York: ABA Publishers, 2010.
Kiefer, Geofrey, and Ellis Jason. Combating proliferation: Strategic intelligence and security policy. Maryland: JHU Press, 2008.
Lowenthal, Mark. Intelligence – from secrets to policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011.
Murdock, Clark. Improving the practice of national security strategy – A new approach for the post-Cold War. New York: CSIS, 2004.
Richelson, Jeffrey. The US intelligence community. London: West view Press, 2010.
Shackelford, Colins, Bolt, Paul, and Damon Coletta. American defense policy. Maryland: JHU Press, 2010.
Sam, Sarkesian, John, Williams, and Stephen Cimbala. US national security – policy makers, processes, & politics. New York: University of Michigan, 2008.
Zegat, Army. Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11. Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Footnotes
1 Shackelford, Colins, Bolt Paul and Damon Coletta, American defense policy (Maryland: JHU Press, 2010).
2 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 71.
3 Richelson Jeffrey, The US intelligence community (London: West view Press, 2010), 123.
4 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 75.
5 Borone Andrew, The U.S. intelligence community (New York: ABA Publishers, 2010), 117.
6 Lowenthal Mark, Intelligence – from secrets to policy (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011), 147.
7 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 75.
8 Lowenthal, opt.cit. 149
9 Born Hans, International intelligence corporation and accountability (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011), 167.
10 Murdock Clark, Improving the practice of national security strategy – A new approach for the post-Cold War (New York: CSIS, 2004), 33.
11 Born, opt.cit. 167
12 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 75.
13 Kiefer Geofrey and Ellis Jason, Combating proliferation: Strategic intelligence and security policy (Maryland: JHU Press, 2008), 27.
14 Murdock Clark, Improving the practice of national security strategy – A new approach for the post-Cold War (New York: CSIS, 2004), 33.
France and Japan are governed differently. Executive leaders of the two countries possess varying degrees of power and influence. France is led by a president while Japan is led by a prime minister. The two leaders ascend to power differently. This may partly explain the reason why the prime minister of Japan is not a very influential person.
The French president has considerable power and influence as compared to the Japanese prime minister. It has been argued that the French president has considerable power that is not permitted in other democracies. For instance, the president has power to appoint the prime minister (Gaffney 54).
The prime minister leads the government while the president exercises executive authority in France. French presidents have great personal influence on the country. This influence can be ascribed to the fact that the president is required by the constitution to be a uniting factor. The president is expected to behave like a statesman in public. France is partially socialist. The French constitution declares that France is a democratic and socialist state. Former presidents appeared to subscribe to socialist ideals.
In contrast, the national symbol of unity in Japan is the emperor. The emperor is the head of state. However, his office is ceremonial in nature. The emperor witnesses the swearing in of the prime minister. This affects the public influence of the prime minister. The citizens look up to the emperor in times of crisis.
For instance, in times of war the populace expects the emperor to be a source of hope. The emperor is expected to encourage the citizens and the soldiers to fight for their country and the prime minister is expected to oversee the logistics of the war. Though the prime minister will have done a lot of work, it is the emperor who is remembered more for giving hope and encouragement. This may be attributed to the fact that war and crises are perceived emotionally.
In France, the president comes to power through a popular vote. The president has to seek power from the people directly. The president has an opportunity to endear himself to the populace during campaigns. In addition he has to get more than half the votes cast to assume office.
This implies that the president enjoys the support of at least half the population. This loosely translates to considerable influence for the president. In such circumstances, the president can carry out his mandate with great confidence because majority of the people in the country have faith in his leadership.
On the other hand, the Japanese prime minister is elected by parliament (Diet). Though a future prime minister is expected to receive support from majority of the prefectures, he does not have to engage the public directly. This reduces his influence in the country. Absence of the ability to directly elect the prime minister has made many Japanese nationals feel that the premiership rather than prime minister is important. In Japan, the ruling party is in power.
The ruling party has the final say on who becomes the prime minister. It can dismiss the prime minister through an impeachment motion. Therefore, the power and influence of the prime minister is largely tied to the composition of parliament. Japan has had many prime ministers since the end of World War II (Mulgan 195). This is clear evidence that the prime ministers are merely representatives of their parties. They lack personal influence. However, there have been a few prime ministers with considerable influence.
They include those who made the economy their priority. It is important to note that this group of prime ministers had a greater risk for impeachment. In the past they have been forced to shoulder responsibility for an election defeat or policy failure. This compelled many former prime ministers to suppress their views. Generally, a Japanese prime minister does not remain in the national limelight long enough to become a national figure. They are usually forced to resign before they capture attention of the nation.
In both France and Japan, the executive leaders have been given the power to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers. In Japan, the prime minister appoints both members of parliament and non-parliamentarians to cabinet. The Japanese prime minister can dismiss members of cabinet as he wishes.
If a prime minister is dropped by his party, the new prime minister is expected to appoint a new cabinet. However, the French president can appoint the prime minister and other office holders but he cannot dismiss them without the approval of parliament. The president can control the executive arm of government if he has a clear majority in the national assembly. The president’s control is reduced if a different party has more members of parliament (Thorburn 201).
The French president reserves the power to declare war on an enemy. The president is empowered by the constitution to decide when nuclear arsenal can be used. This is enormous power vested on a single individual. It is important to note that the president can take all power in times of crisis.
In such scenarios the prime minister and parliament lose control over the president. The president of the republic of France also reserves the right to negotiate and sign treaties with other countries. This is absolute power and no one other than the citizens of France can overturn his decisions.
In Japan, the prime minister together with his cabinet may recommend a course of action to parliament and the emperor who must agree before any action is taken. The prime minister cannot declare war without the approval of parliament. Treaties must also be ratified by parliament. In such situations the party leader seems to have more influence than the prime minister.
The party leader in Japan is traditionally regarded as the second in command after the prime minister. The prime minister is somewhat less influential when it comes to party issues. This subordination may lead to resignation of the prime minister.
In conclusion, the Japanese prime minister is elected by members of parliament while the French president is elected by the public. The French president has more power and influence than the Japanese prime minister. The French president is a symbol of unity while the Japanese prime minister is only a chief executive of the country.
In both Japan and France, the cabinet is appointed by the chief executive (prime minister and president respectively). However, in France the power to dismiss ministers is regulated by parliament. In Japan, the prime minister has the power to dismiss cabinet members without offering a satisfactory explanation.
Works Cited
Gaffney, John. Political Leadership in France: From Charles de Gaulle to Nicolas Sarkozy, Palgrave: Macmillan Publishers, 2012. Print.
Mulgan, A. “Japan’s Political Leadership Deficit.” Australian Journal of Political Science. 35.2 (2000): 183–202. Web.
Thorburn, H.G. “Towards a More Simplified Party System in France.” Canadian Journal of Political Science.1. 2 (1968): 204-216. Web.
The past years has seen a gradual increase in presidential powers leading to an imperial presidency. This increase can be attributed to a number of historical events in the country. During national crises like Civil War and the Great Depression it is important that the president show good leadership; a leadership that keeps the country united despite the crisis while at the same time ensuring that the crisis is successfully resolved.
If the president succeeds in dealing with the crisis effectively, he will command a great respect among the citizens hence increasing his presidential powers. Secondly, many people would respect leaders who initiate sound policies. During tenure as the occupant of the House on the Hill, President Franklin Roosevelt commanded a great respect among the Americans when he showed leadership in legislation as the New Deal policy originated from the executive branch under his direction.
This was also the case in the presidency of Johnson who initiated the Great Society policy. Such show of leadership in formulation of major legislation led to the increase in the presidential powers. One of the reasons why President Clinton was powerful presidents is because of the many executive orders he issued during his reign. Such executive order as the Emancipation Proclamation was popular with the people thereby increasing the president’s powers.
The ability of the president to run a country with sound trade policies that ensure economic growth is a major factor in boosting the image of the president. Good public image comes with increased powers thus the conclusion of such trade agreements as the Reciprocal Trade Agreements and reduction of tariff on foreign goods saw an upsurge in presidential powers.
This led to creation of an imperial president. Moreover, being the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the president must show good leadership especially during war. Successful execution of this duty will without doubt lead to an increase of powers of the president. Many presidents of the United States of America earned local and international respect and thus an increase in their powers by their activism both at the local and international stage.
Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt saw an upsurge in their presidential powers due to their presidential activism in national and world affairs. Presidents who are seen by the public as strong and able usually command a popular admiration and consequently increased powers. This was the case for presidents such as Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt who became powerful due to popular admiration for being strong and able.
Many presidents also saw their powers as president increase due to their strong and popular foreign policies. This is because these foreign policies affect the lives of the American people both directly and indirectly. Thus the successful of such policies would lead to admiration both locally and internationally. The resulting good reputation leads to presidential powers increase.
The budget of any country is a very sensitive issue since it has a direct bearing on the living standards of the citizens. Thus any president who sets the right agenda as the budget maker would definitely command great respect and as such, become very powerful (Dye 96).
These factors may lead to an imperial president however there are checks and balances that ensure the president only enjoy the constitutional powers only. Such checks and balances exercised by the Judiciary, the Congress, media and public, friends and family and self control. The Congress being the predominant branch of the government always reasserts its powers over the president ensuring that imperialism does not set in due to the increasing presidential powers.
Through congressional hearings, the Congress is able to increase public awareness and opposition to various national and international issues. This may force the president to review its policies and stand concerning such issues as seen during the congressional hearings on the Vietnam War which put pressure on President Johnson and Nixon to withdraw from the war through negotiations. As the Congress reasserts its powers, imperialism in the presidency is checked.
This it does by conducting investigations such as the Watergate investigation against President Nixon, the Iran-Contra investigation against President Reagan and the White Water investigation against President Clinton (Smith, Jason and Ryan 50 – 111). Moreover, it also reasserts its powers by making their stand known to the president on any matter through Congressional debates. The Congress may also propose constitutional amendments and thus redefine presidential powers such as limiting the terms of office of the president.
The Congress can also limit the presidential powers by passing a resolution not to commit American troops into combat abroad. In addition, the Congress may also declare war thereby allowing the president to exercise emergency powers such as prohibiting strikes and lockouts. The Congress has the power to tax and to spend and thus controls the president spending too (Dye 97 – 98).
The Congress also accompanies the president and participates in international conferences as American delegates thereby shaping the outcomes of such conferences. Moreover the Congress also, by repassing the bill in the same session by a two-thirds majority vote in each house, override presidential veto. The presidential powers are also limited by the Congress since it must approve all the judicial appointments as the president must consult the Congress.
The Congress also has the power to impeach the president as seen in the case of presidents Nixon and Clinton (Smith, Jason and Ryan 120 – 191). The media and public opinion also prevent imperialism. The president should also have control and also listen to the counsel of family and friends. If these groups fail in any case, the Judiciary then takes up the matter and limit presidential powers to prevent imperialism.
Works Cited
Dye, Thomas. Politics In America, (8th ed.). New York: Pearson/Ph, 2009.
Smith, Steven, Jason, Roberts and Ryan, Vander Wielen. The American Congress (5th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
The position and representation of both President and Congress in United States have brought huge debates. Some people argue that Congress does not really represent the constituents.
While the position of the president is certainly preferred since it is considered to represent the opinion of the people. Delegates’ representation is a body or an individual who cast votes which are consistent to the wishes of the voters which he represents. The trustee hypothesis proposes that the duties of representatives are to serve in the interest of his voters or constituents.
The delegate method proposes that the representative must serve merely on the instruction of his voters (Kernell, Jacobson and Kousser 23). This form does not provide voters the privilege to provide their own views and fails to address the needs of their country, district or the state. Basically, the representatives serve as the opinions of the people who are not literally at attendance.
The most common way of representation at the national stage is delegate representation, which can be observed at the presidential stage through elections, public participation, political stand, and election campaigns.
Congress and president should listen and react according to the views and the opinion of the people or the voters. The best practice for the delegate representation is to use some approaches or strategies which satisfy the needs and desires of the people.
President Acts as Delegate
The president mostly acts as a delegate and often consults the people in some matters which he reflects to be important to the people directly. It would be appropriate for the president sometimes not to consult the people in some matters since the people trusted him and voted him to take the position. He should consult Americans directly but not the electorates.
These are voters who the president represents when creating the laws and when the president meets with representatives from other countries to address the treaty or any other related issues. He is not representing the Congress or the government, but he is representing the entire nation.
However, as earlier mentioned, the president has the privilege to make some decisions without consulting the public since the people elected the president and acts as a trusted person. Additionally, the voters trust him and believe in his thoughts (Kernell, Jacobson and Kousser 23).
The people elected the president to act and create things to happen and by electing a president who is representing the public in the way of the trustee alone is not a wise idea. There is no need then to have the president and the people should go straight to Congress.
Congress has not been fully showing the qualities of delegate representation. They have been voting without analyzing the opinions of the people. A direct democracy appears to adapt the current system of government and the modern world than the Congress form of representation.
Besides, it is reasonably obvious that representatives in Washington do not represent the desires of the people any longer. Instead, Congress represents particular desires of the corporations which protect them in their offices. So the very institution which was intended to represent the public has betrayed them and turn into a device of corporations which are destroying and exploiting the public for their own interests.
While acting as a delegate in representing the people of America, the president should put more effort in representing the entire population. It is practically difficult to make everybody pleased and if only the elitists are pleased, who compose a very minimal ratio of the population, the president is fundamentally showing that he would not be elected for another term in the office.
Since the elitists compose only small percentage of the population and if the larger ratio of the population is not pleased and unhappy about the form of leadership, they may create huge opposition to the president (Smith, Roberts and Vande 40).
While representing the Americans in a delegate’s manner and training the public so that they have a better opinion of what is taking place, the president must also avoid representing the people in expressive manner.
The voters often have the difficulty in getting in touch with their representatives and they have no idea what is happening in their districts or states.
Certainly, the members of the Congress claim that they are representing the people while they are seen flying around in magnificent jets and are provided with free medical cover on the Congressional health insurance benefits plan. However, this does not enable the public to be aware or the things which are taking place in their districts or states.
Political Positions
The president shows his qualities of a good delegate representative if his leadership responds to some changes in people emotions or sentiments. The people analyze public policy through either proposing the government to improve it or reduce it and that conclusion changes as opinions of the world change.
The president predicts these changes and reacts consequently (Smith 442). When the public policy changes from people’s demands for policy, the representation arrangement serves as a control tool to maintain policy on the right track.
The president often worries a lot regarding the opinions of the people since he understands that the conclusion he makes can be examined in a future election and utilized as bullets by his opponents. The president way of leadership has more delegate representation and changes according to the public opinion.
If there is no delegate representation and the people are not pleased by the president or the Congress, the public may consider that they are not represented well. The president often considers the expediency position to increase his possibility of being reelected in the coming election since it almost certainly to influence the voters.
This is the stand the president understands that most of the voters are consistent with and will be happy with the president for following this position. However, the president should keep himself updated regarding the state of the opinions of the voters to help him understand the expediency position (Smith 442).
These fluctuations in opinions atmosphere provide vital impacts on policy plans and policy results. This means that when the voters or people change moods, president is fast to be delegate representative and satisfies his voters since he wants to stay in office. Through this normal expectation, the president changes policy from the changing or drifting opinions.
Apart from controlling changes in public policy, the people indicate the strengths and trends of the policies. This means that they have views whether the president or the government is either very dynamic or not dynamic enough and whether policy must be more liberal or more conservative.
The president cannot disregards the public and he can declare himself in political positions which are positive to the people or voters as well as changes policy to satisfy the public’s desires all in an effort to remain in office for the remaining constitutional term in office.
Public participation in the affairs of the country is yet another approach the president uses in his way of delegate representation. The president has been engaging the public so that the public can trust him (Smith 442).
The political polls give a foundation in which the policy can be created. Again, President Clinton made use of political polls and became admired leader for acting in a delegate representation way and he also acted the way the people or his voters needed him to do (Smith, Roberts and Ryan Vande 40).
Conclusion
The public is a huge factor in establishing public polices and handling public issues. The president and the Congress frequently serve in ways they consider satisfies public policies as observed in their political stands and campaigns.
The president follows the public polls and information to be informed. He always understands the public’s emotions or climate since he understands that this will support him in the future elections. Both the congress and president take reelection as their key objective.
Delegate way of representation by the president has been favored by Americans since they are allowed to provide their own views. They are involved in decision making in all issues which affect their lives. The president is elected by the people and is considered that he is a trusted part of the government.
He consults the public in all the issues which he considers appropriate for them. Since he was elected and trusted person, sometimes he should make decisions by himself. The president acts both as delegate and trustee. If the powers of the president are increase, he can fully represent the country without interruption from Congress who works for their own interests.
Works Cited
Kernell, Samuel, Gary Jacobson and Thad Kousser. The Logic of American Politics. New York: CQ Press, 2011. Print.
Schmidt, Steffen. American Government and Politics Today, 2010-2011. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
Smith, Steven. Congressional Trends: Principles and Practice of American Politics. Washington D.C: CQ Press. 2004. Print.
Smith, Steven, Jason Roberts and Ryan Vande. The American Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.
The US constitutional principles determine procedures for separating powers for the purpose of avoiding the concentration of political power. Limiting the exercise of power by every branch is one of the central issues of the national security strategy.
The restraints of power have both positive and negative consequences on the US national security establishment, complicating the decision making as to the country’s involvement into Iraq, Iran and North Korea issues, causing the disagreements between the current president and the congressional committees.
The National Security Act of 1947 has been the major document defining the national security policymaking model for more than 50 years. However, the events of 9/11 have demonstrated that the current system is inconsistent and requires reformations.
A number of political scientists point at the weak points of this model as the main preconditions of inability of the country to prevent the national tragedy. “bureaucratic turf battles prevented large parts of the national security bureaucracy (first created by the 1947 NSA) from preparing for the non-state actors who threatened the United States in the post-Cold War era” (Bolton 2008, 276).
On the one hand, focused on exploring the state enemies, the system did not consider the danger of such non-state actors as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. On the other hand, the inner governmental controversies became a hindrance for taking appropriate risk prevention measures after analyzing the available information.
The 9/11 events reaffirmed the importance of standard procedures of reconsidering the country’s defense strategy before the beginning of each president’s administration when the US congressional committees review the formulation of the national security strategy (NSS). (Murdock 2004).
As it was mentioned in Freire’s interview by Kristine Frazao, the current president Obama seems to stay the course of his predecessor Bush, approaching the issues of national security.
For example, touching upon the issue of involvement into Afghanistan conflict, Obama noted that “We have supported the elections of the sovereign government, now we must strengthen its capacities…
I have no doubt that together with Afghanistan International partners we will succeed in Afghanistan” (“Could the creation of the X-51 be the next step in US domination”). The issue of national security and distribution of power between various branches remains rather debatable and controversial.
For the purpose of ensuring the unbiased approach to development of national security strategies, the intelligence agencies are separated from decision makers. However, this model causes certain problems with integrating and standardizing the procedures. “Intelligence officers who are dealing with policy makers are expected to maintain professional objectivity and not push specific policies.
If intelligence officers have a strong preference for a specific policy outcome, their intelligence analysis may display a similar bias” (Lowenthal 2008, 4). At the same time, the coordination and effective collaboration between various branches is of crucial importance for responding to various challenges of present day criminological situation.
The current procedures of establishing the national security strategies are inconsistent. “There is likely to be internal disagreement and debate within the national security establishment, between the establishment and other branches and agencies of government, and between all of these and the public” (Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala 2008, p. 21).
Appropriate measures need to be imposed for further analysis of the effectiveness of coordination between the current president and the congressional committees and improving the current model.
Reference List
Bolton, Kent. 2008. US national security and foreign policymaking after 9/11: Present at the recreation. Lanham: The Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Freire, J. “Could the creation of the X-51 be the next step in US domination”. Interview by Kristine Frazao.
Lowenthal, Mark. 2008. Intelligence: From secrets to policy. Washington: CQ Press.
Murdock, Clark. 2004. Improving the practice of national security strategy: A new approach for the post-Cold War world.
Sarkesian, Sam, John Williams, and Stephen Cimbala. 2008. US national security: Policymakers, processes, and politics. Michigan: Lynne Rienner Publishers.