Category: President

Modern-day politics in America revolves around the presidential republic whereby the President of the United States has most of the power as the head of state, government as well as the electoral system and the legislative parties. American politics have 2 major parties which are the Democratic party and the Republican party. Currently, the United States is the only country practicing democracy without third-party interference. The American political culture ensures that the government should be answerable to its citizens, the government should have limited powers on matters of freedom of religion and freedom of expression as well as that all citizens should be equal before the law. The Americans also believe in expressing their opinions on any matter with full freedom.

Dan F Hahn, suggests that the people should analyze the political situation in the country based on what they think is logical. He encourages especially political students or law students to analyze the political rhetoric based on what are the facts given to them and what they observe over the political period. For example, the charisma of a politician could be felt even after they have completed their political careers. Thus, it is important for the student to learn how to efficiently and effectively analyze the rhetoric of political issues that happens on a daily basis. This is when it is important to compare famous political leaders and to identify their strengths and weaknesses as part of the analysis. He goes around to main factors, which are the amount of freedom given to the people against the amount of power being used. This also highlights the leadership styles in each leader, in which he suggests there should be an addition of 2 or more qualities in order to be a good leader.

President Richard M. Nixon was the firsts to go towards reconciliation. He ended the war against Vietnam and worked hard to improve relationships with countries like Russia and China. He proposed the Nixon Doctrine, whereby he replaced the American troops with the Vietnamese troops. It was also known as the ‘Vietnamization’. He steadily declined the American involvement in the war until all the troops were gone away from Vietnam in the year 1973. In 1972, Nixon went directly to Beijing and Russia to mend ties with them. During this period, he also met with the Russian leader, Leonid I Brezhnev to produce a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons. Apart from that, in 1973, Nixon also created a bond with North Vietnam in order to end America’s involvement in Indochina. In the following year, his secretary, Henry Kissinger worked as a negotiator to engage agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria. Thus, since he became the President, his approach was more of an idealist whereby trying to achieve world stability. He also brought in the new concepts of revenue sharing among the people. In addition, during Nixon’s first year, the American astronauts made their first landing on the moon which made his 1^st year quite a dramatic turn of events. Moreover, in 1972, Nixon approved the development of NASA’s Space Shuttle program which has allowed Americans to explore space and produce many useful facts based on their research which not only helped Americans to develop space program’s for the future but also allowed the developing countries to proceed into the space program based on the American’s expertise.

Besides that, Nixon also appointed Justice of conservative philosophy to the Supreme court just as he had earlier promised during his elections. He also introduced revenue sharing, ended the draft as well as created new anticrime laws for the safety of the common people. He also developed environmental programs to ensure that the perseverance of the environment starts early. Unfortunately, Nixon was forced to resign after the ‘Watergate’ scandal emerged during his 70’s campaigning. In 1983, Nixon summarized his political views in his book titled ‘Real Peace’, “Short of changing human nature, therefore the only way to approach a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.” When Nixon was re-elected in 1972, he created a US political history as one of the biggest landslide election victories. Using Hahn’s analyzing approach, Nixon is domestically viewed as a conservative centrist and as a conservative-liberal through his domestic policies. One of Nixon’s biggest contributions would be creating the ‘Imperial Presidency’, whereby the President has a high level of control over the government’s policy and decisions. This is still being practiced in modern-day politics.

In a more recent note, President Bill Clinton has been described as a centrist. He has made history by being one of the longest presidents to keep economic expansion at a very peaceful pace. Not long after Clinton stepped in as the President of the United States, he signed the Family of Medical and Leave Act of 1993 to allow more employers to give unpaid leave to their employees especially during pregnancy or a serious medical condition. Apart from that, Clinton also approved the ‘Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask’ policy for homosexual men and women to work in the military without having to reveal their sexuality and keeping their sexuality a secret. There were talks that Clinton should have followed President Truman’s approach to integrating the military by executive order, thus ending any form of segregation. In addition to the above controversy, President Clinton also had another controversial issue around the same time to deal with. He had supported the North American Free Trade Agreement which was strongly opposed by the anti-trade Republicans, protectionist Democrats as well as Ross Perot’s supporters. Clinton signed the agreement after the Senate had ratified it in 1994.

In the following years, Clinton also signed a few more agreements for the benefit of his people. He signed the Earned Income Tax Credit, as a subsidy to lower-income workers, as well as the Brady Bill which imposed a 5 day waiting period on handgun purchases to discourage blind selling of weapons to citizens underage and so on. Clinton’s administration also faced its first major legislative defeat when their effort to create a national health care system failed under public pressure. Another one of Clinton’s popular decisions is when he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 whereby it helped cut taxes for 15million low-income families as well as for about 90% of the smaller businesses. This allowed the smaller business to grow and pay higher taxes as they grew. Clinton also launched Operation Desert Fox, a campaign to bomb around Iraq in an effort to loosen Saddam Hussein’s grip over Iraq. He also became the first American President to visit Vietnam after the Vietnam war in 2000. The US economy also saw an economic boom and a federal budget surplus ever since the year 1969 under Clinton’s leadership. Even after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he is still one of the most popular US Presidents among his people. He is also known as a very charismatic and people-oriented leader.

After President Clinton stepped down, President George W Bush took over as the 43^rd President of the United States. Perhaps his most famous attempt would be the War against Terrorism which he launched right after the 9/11 attacks on America. He ordered that Afghanistan be invaded and the Taliban be overthrown as they were unfair to the Afghanistan people. He also ordered that Osama bin Laden be captured. Bush also ordered the invasion of Iraq as he claimed that Iraq could be a threat and that the war against them is necessary to protect the United States. Bush also gained popularity by cutting down USD 1.35trillion dollars on taxes, one of the largest tax cuts in US history. He suggested that the unused money should be returned to the taxpayers. This measure, he said would help create more jobs in the country and stimulate the economy.

Bush also faced some major challenges during his presidency. The employment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001 to 6.3% in June 2003 which also increased the poverty level in the United States. Apart from that, the national debt also increased to USD3.25trillion dollars since Bush entered administration. However, Bush made up for all this by signing the No Child Left Behind Act whereby more federal funding was targeted for the lower-income schools, thus encouraging the lower-income group kids to pursue their studies in these government schools. The aim was to narrow the gap between the rich and poor kids. He also allowed more than 12million illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. His reason was to allow everyone to get the same protection of US laws from unfair employers, exploitation, and poverty. One of the major controversial issues was that the government failed to respond immediately to the emergency situation in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina to which Bush admitted and apologized later.

One of the greatest world controversies during the Bush administration was during the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Bush immediately launched the preventive war against Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the immediate order to capture Osama bin Laden. Amidst all this chaos, there was an attempted assignation on Bush 2 years back, in 2005 at Georgia. Bush is viewed as a liberal republican in a more domestic view. Bush is internationally condemned for his war decisions and targeted mostly by anti-war organizations worldwide. Internationally, he has been nicknamed as the second largest threat to world peace by a poll in Britain. Many people prefer Clinton’s approach to a much peaceful way of resolving a situation rather than thru war.

In a conclusion, communication skills among the three featured leaders above are different as they form different leadership impressions such as conservatives, liberalists, and so on. President Nixon was considered to be more of a conservative leader whereas President Clinton and Bush were more liberal leaders and became popular public figures among their people throughout their political careers. Though, both Bush and Clinton are famous public figures, both of them are famous for some very different reasons. Bush is being more of negative side publicity whereas Clinton is being more of a positive public figure. The important keyword here is probably the likeability of a leader and the power that they try to enforce, especially by being one of the most important political figures. As Hahn suggests, it’s a continuous battle among the conservatives and the liberals.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 is the scheduled date for the 56^th presidential elections in the United States. President, as well as, vice-president of the United States will be elected in these elections. Many corresponding elections have also been scheduled that will be carried out with the abovementioned presidential elections, such as local elections, gubernatorial elections, elections for the House of Representatives, etc. Census of 2004 has been considered the partial base for the allocation of votes to each state in the 2008 presidential elections. Subsequently, inauguration of new president and vice president has been scheduled in the month of January 2009. In midst of high-budget and long political campaigns, one of the hottest questions that are rolling down is the chances of the first female president in the political history of the United States. This paper will analyze and discuss different opinions, facts, and perspectives of society that are in favor or against the female presidency in the country.

One of the most discussed candidates for the presidential elections of 2008 has been the wife of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In November 2003, her run for presidential elections was announced by this Democratic senator from New York. Until the year 2007, no major party had ever nominated a female as a presidential candidate. However, media, bloggers, and American society came into controversy, when national image of Hillary Clinton established her as a candidacy for the presidential elections in 2008. Since then, different magazines, surveys, discussions, and interviews have been carried out, in order to discuss and analyze the position of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidacy. Until now, opinions seem to be divided and perplexed in terms of deciding whether she can become the first president of the United States or not.

Nowadays, every platform related to the presidential elections is discussing the topic of Democratic Senator from New York over her chances of becoming a loser or the vice versa, the first female president of the United States. A number of experts have indicated the chances of dragging down of Democratic Party in the upcoming elections in the year 2008, and the Republican Party will be sitting in the White House. Perhaps, no political question or opinion is has been sound enough to make a final decision, and therefore, this discussion is continuous and confusing in some sense. Presently, provision of a definite answer to this question is earlier and no one knows the result of these elections. Moreover, evaluation of Hillary by the U.S. voters is an unknown factor that may bring any decision in the country. However, a number of factors may affect, and are affecting the image of Hillary Clinton, which are discussed in this paper.

Hillary has been holding a considerable place in these elections due to her relation with the former president, Bill Clinton, but still, various reports have shown that her political potential and abilities have been underestimated due to her gender. Presently, American society is very confused in deciding whether the history can be changed by the Senator Hillary Clinton as the first female President of the United States, or her gender will drag her down to the losers’ arena. Worldwide, six females are serving as presidents, four females are providing their capabilities as prime ministers, and until now, the United States has not seen any female president in the White House. (Carroll, pp. 33-36) First female presidency can be a debatable discussion, and is being discussed at almost every level in different states of the country. Currently, the U.S. Senate has fourteen females, the House of Representatives has fifty-nine, and eight females are governing different states of the country. Will Hillary Clinton be the first one to serve the country while sitting in the White House, is a big question for the American society. There are speculations that Hillary Clinton may become the first female President of the United States; however, one of the first hindrances in her path is her gender that has not been accepted by the American politics and society yet.

It has been believed by some of the observers and experts that her gender will not let Hillary win the presidential elections in the year 2008. According to a number of surveys and polls, female president is not something that is acceptable to the American people at large. In the year 1920, the U.S. Government gave the right of voting to the women; (Estrich, pp. 45-48) however, every political level underestimated its capabilities. According to the political history of the United States, women have not been encouraged to participate, and especially, make decisions at the top level. Although American society is very liberal in terms of women, as compared with the other nations of the globe, still, women have not been accepted in terms of their leadership. One of the reasons of such discrimination is that American society is still a male-dominant society, and therefore, leadership of a woman is not being encouraged. Females constitute only fifteen and fourteen percent of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States respectively. Overt prejudice is one of the foremost obstacles that are confronted by the female politicians in the country, and that is being confronted by Clinton. Presidency of the United States is considered one of the most powerful and responsible job in the globe, and therefore, females are not considered tough enough to handle this hectic job, which is one of the reasons that Hillary is losing against Obama.

In midst of such confrontation at political level, she is not just a New York Senator; she is not the wife of Bill Clinton, or a candidate of 2008 presidential election, but she is just a suburban woman from one of the Northeastern villages of the United States. She likes to wear dresses like a normal woman and laugh out with her family. If the paper looks into her personal life that is very much connected to the debatable topic, her gender, it has been observed that she served as a First Lady of the United States from the year 1993 to 2001, which has affected her personal life at a greater extent. As earlier mentioned in the paper, she is natively from Illinois, and has been representing her Wellesley College at a number of debates and commencement exercises. In the year 1973, she graduated from Yale Law School as a lawyer. In the subsequent year, Arkansas was her destination that connected her with the Congress as a legal counsel. A year later, former U.S President Bill Clinton married her. According to the surveys, magazines, and polls from the year 1988 to 1992, she has been considered one of the most influential female personalities in the United States, especially due to her law practice. (Estrich, pp. 20-24) Welfare of children has been one of the major areas that have been focused primarily by this suburban woman. Still, American society is not ready for a female President. One of the major reasons is that the American people are not much experienced in terms of working with a female leader, and therefore, the public and especially, media is quite perplexed in accepting a female candidate for the presidential elections in the year 2008.

Still, after a long period of campaigns from Hillary Clinton, American society is still perplexed about accepting a female president for its country. Some of the surveys have indicated that Hillary do have the chances to win this election; however, the anti-Clinton campaigns are trying their best to take advantage of her gender, which is still a matter of resistance for the American society.

Works Cited

Susan J. Carroll. (2006). Gender and Elections. Cambridge University Press.

Susan Estrich. (2005). the Case for Hillary Clinton. Regan Books.

Nichola D. Gutgold. (2006). Paving the Way for Madam President. Lexington Books.

Introduction

The Constitution of the United States divides the national powers and responsibilities in foreign policy between the President and Congress, allowing each of the six ways of carrying it out (Grimmett). The President is well placed to exercise foreign policy powers because of several advantages: being the sole elected national holder of the office, a political party leader, playing a unitary role, and having continuous sessions (CQ Press).

The six ways allowed to the President are:

Response to Foreign Events

The President can create foreign policy if U.S. interest is put in danger by sudden developments in foreign nations. Congress usually approves his action, but they may request him to reconsider a few aspects or all of it. A good example is President Bush’s reaction to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. He immediately put in place economic sanctions against Iraq and, along with other countries under U.N authority, sent U.S. troops to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Congress fully supported his action (Grimmett). While both the President and Congress share responsibility for the foreign policy, the share of the former is larger than the latter and the gravity of the responsibility is also greater as it involves a commitment of the country’s troops and resources.

Administration Proposal for Legislation

Some foreign policy programs require Congressional approval. In such cases, the President proposes the policy to Congress that has to give its approval before the proposal can become foreign policy. A good example is the Marshall Plan that President Truman proposed to Congress in 1947 to undertake an aid program to west European countries to help them recover from the destruction caused by the Second World War. Congress granted its approval and the Marshall Plan was followed during the next 4 years (Grimmett). The responsibility of this foreign policy shifts away from the President, almost totally resting on Congress.

Negotiation of International Agreements

The President has the power to enter into ‘sole international agreements’ without prior approval of Congress. The authority of the President is considered sufficient enough for such action on his part. Examples are the Vietnam Peace Agreement of 1973 and the Iranian Hostage Agreement of 1981. Other international agreements have to get Congressional approval before being signed by the President (Grimmett). While the President shares the responsibility in case of the latter group of international agreements, total responsibility is taken in case of ‘sole international agreements,’ whereby any bad effects in the future could be blamed squarely on the President.

Policy Statements

The President has the power to create foreign policy either unilaterally or bilaterally. Unilateral statements contain broad American goals and objectives. For example, in April 1991 President Bush declared the U.S. would join in international donations of relief materials to Kurdish refugees in the border between Iraq and Turkey. Bilateral statements are joint declarations with governments of other nations. For example, during the Summit conference in May 1986, the U.S. President and leaders of 6 other nations announced they would fight terrorism via certain economic and diplomatic methods (Grimmett). While the responsibility of such policies rests totally with the President, the benign nature of issues involved reduces the overall gravity of such responsibility.

Policy Implementation

In cases where foreign policy is already in place as a result of Congress legislation, the President has the power to change that policy and take on-the-ground implementation decisions. In an example involving arms sale policy, President Bush informed Congress in September 1992 that he intended to sell 72 F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia; the sale was carried out a month later when Congress did not come up with any objections in the meantime (Grimmett). The responsibility of the President is limited to single deals because the action is taken based on already existing foreign policies.

Independent Action

The President has the power to take sudden foreign policy action before such action is properly and informed to Congress. Congress normally approves the President’s action in such cases because anything different would be seen as undercutting the President on the global stage. The best example is the U.S. military invasion of Grenada in October 1983 on the instructions of President Reagan to prevent Communists from forming a dominating base there. Reagan promised to withdraw U.S. troops from Grenada within a maximum period of 2 months. Congress approved of Reagan’s action and even granted Grenada $ 15 million in economic aid (Grimmett). The responsibility of a foreign policy rests on the President, whereby any ill effects resulting from the policy could be squarely blamed on him or her.

Conclusion

While exercising his powers and acknowledging his responsibilities towards foreign policy, the President can take the help of his support staff that includes specialist advisors, executive councils, cabinet secretaries, and other staff members all of whom are well experienced in foreign policy matters (CQ Press).

References

• Grimmett, Richard F. “Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress” U.S. Department of State. 1999. Web.
• “U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power” CQ Press. 2007. Web.

I feel that in view of the present circumstances in which the USA is going through in terms of the high incidence of terrorism, education needs, the delicate economic situation, social security, and healthcare needs, there is a dire need for a drastic change in the political scenario of the country otherwise the stage will be set for a downfall in all fronts which will be difficult to recoup from. In this light, a change is warranted in the choice of the President of the country especially in view of the impending elections for the topmost position. My choice for the position is Barack Obama because he is young, and can be the face of a changing America who will steer the country successfully in the 21^st century as also away from the entire lot of problems that have gripped the country from almost every front. I will examine why he is the most suitable candidate from the point of view of the economy, his stand on global warming, and how his experience will hold him in high stead to best perform the role of the President of the USA.

The American media loves to criticize and take up issues that tend to doubt the ability of contenders for political positions, and Barack Obama is no exception to this. They have highlighted that if elected he may not be able to handle the job of President as effectively as his political opponents. However, this is unfounded in view of his vast exposure to political positions right from his early days. He was elected as the first Black president of his college and has chalked out his own inclusive and productive style of working in the US Senate where he focused on tackling the issues imposed by a changing and globalized 21^st century. He has been the champion of ethics in regard to rooting out corruption in Congress and has taken far-reaching initiatives in foreign policy issues pertaining to foreign relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs committees. He holds the Chair for Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations, which coordinates relations between the European Union, European countries, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Amongst all the presidential contenders it is Barack Obama who holds the maximum positions for committees dealing with foreign affairs. Obama has the requisite experience in minority matters, has worked with Republicans on government laws, and co-sponsored a law that would involve federal expenses databases that can be referred to by web users to track all grants. Obama’s experience is but a small indication of his candidature as president. He has had a very volatile past. Born to a white woman and a black man, he had to move in his childhood to Indonesia with his mother after the separation at the instance of his father. He returned to Hawai, his native place, to attend high school and went on to study political science and international relations at Columbia University. After his graduation, he worked as a community organizer for three years in Chicago and then did law at Harvard where he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. Obama chose to do community service instead of a high-paying job and his abilities in understanding and gaining the respect of his political opponents have taken him a great distance in proving that he is indeed an intelligent, fair, and courageous leader.

Obama’s plan to give a boost to the economy includes several measures both short-term and long-term. To jump-start the economy he will enact a windfall profits tax on extra profits made by oil companies to fund $1000 for each middle-class family in view of the rising prices. He will make provision for a $25 million State Growth Fund to prevent states from avoiding spending on health, housing, education, and heating subsidies. There will also be an additional Jobs and Growth Fund of $25 million to prevent cutbacks in infrastructure maintenance so as to save over one million jobs. He will provide middle-class Americans with tax relief by providing a tax cut for working families, and eliminating income tax for aged people earning less than $50000. He will simplify the filing of tax returns for middle-class Americans so that tax formalities are completed within five minutes. His plans also include strengthening the American economy by first doing away with trade agreements that undermine the country’s economic security. He will formulate a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support and create more jobs for Americans and will put pressure on the World Trade Organization to stop countries that engage in unfair government subsidies being granted to foreign export companies. He will amend the North American Free Trade Agreement and improve transition assistance to help workers in adapting to a fast-changing economy. Tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs to other countries will be stopped and companies supporting the cause of American workers will be rewarded by way of tax credits. Obama intends to invest more in the manufacturing sector to create five million jobs by creating an Advanced Manufacturing Fund of $125 million. He will facilitate double funding for the manufacturing extension partnerships and invest in the clean energy economy and create extra jobs. On his agenda is to further create new job training programs for clean technologies and boost the renewable energy sector for generating more job opportunities. National infrastructure investment will be given a fill-up by creating the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank and he will support technological innovation by investing in the sciences and by making the research and development tax credit a permanent feature. Next-generation broadband will be deployed to make it available to all communities by making optimum use of the national wireless spectrum and promoting technology applications by way of tax and loan incentives. Small businesses will be supported by way of tax relief and workers will be given more rights. Economic legislation will be introduced to protect homeowners and there will be a crackdown on mortgage fraud. Bankruptcy laws will be reformed and efforts will be made to bring balance between work and family.

Global warming is an important issue for all governments in today’s world of high-tech developments that are depleting natural resources and causing added damage to the atmosphere, which may entail disastrous consequences for future generations. In this regard, Obama has maintained a firm stand in detailing his plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least eighty percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. His prevention measures require industries to pay for their role in emitting greenhouse gases. Although this measure is criticized as being too burdensome on the industry, Obama has stuck to his intentions of implementing the given procedures.

References

Brad Knickerbocker, Where the ’08 contenders stand on global warming, 2007, The Christian science Monitor.

Kent Garber, Where McCain and Obama Stand on Environmental Issues, 2008, US News and World Report.

Newt Gingrich, Does Barack Obama have enough experience to be president? 2007. Web.

Plan to Strengthen the Economy, 2008. Web.

Introduction

The mutual relationship between America and Canada is significant to both countries. Their relationship in the past was based on conflict as they tried to invade each other. However, the two countries have managed to build very strong ties. They are large trading partners and they share the world’s longest undefended border. The two countries have for many years been allies, supporting each other in war.

Canadian-American relations

World War II was the first military collaboration between Canada and America. This continued even in the cold war and the Iraq invasion in 2003. Although Canada has often questioned America’s foreign policy they have nonetheless been a close ally. Military collaboration between Canada and the United States is largely responsible for the end of the hostility between them before the world wars. The defense policies of Canada and America have differed for instance; disputes arose due to the Vietnam War, the Iraq war, the status of Cuba, and the war on terrorism.

After World War II Canada was largely dependant on the US for trade, making the United States its largest market. In 1971 president Nixon canceled the Bretton Wood System. The president placed a 90-day wage and price control, importation taxes were also increased by 10% and the direct conversion of dollars to gold was banned except on the open market. This policy created a lot of international conflict and tension.

This decision was referred to as the “Nixon shock” since international countries and even his countrymen were not involved in making the decision. The Canadian government like other governments was greatly concerned by this move. Canada was in a mode of panic as it depended greatly on the US for trade. The Canadian Prime Minister retaliated by articulating the ‘third option’ policy so as to diversify Canada’s trade and reduce its dependence on the US. The relationship between Canada and the United State was so strained that President Nixon declared their relationship dead in a speech in 1972.

The previous year Canadian Prime Minister had stated that “America posed a danger to Canada’s national identity, culture, economy and military position.” In his opinion, America was becoming overwhelming. President Nixon’s response emphasized that Canada would no longer receive any special treatment or economic favors from the United States. It was then that the American President passed the surcharge on imports from all countries (1971). Canada’s economy, trade, and employment sector were adversely affected by the Auto Pact.¹

When President Nixon visited China in 1972 it marked a new twist on cold war diplomacy. This was the first-ever visit to China by an American President. China was by then considered America’s biggest enemy. This was the first step towards creating ties between America and China and ending the enmity that had lasted for over 20 years. It established diplomatic relations between the US and the Communist Republic of China. ²

President Nixon was also able to provide a lasting solution to the Alaska boundary issue. The Native American peoples’ claims and the Arctic Policy had proved to be a challenge for both the American and Canadian governments. President Nixon signed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. This gave the Native Americans 40 million acres of land and 962.5 million on condition that they do not make any further claims to the land in Alaska.

President Ford managed to secure membership for Canada in the G 7 in 1975. This was during an inaugural assembly for The Group of 7 Industrialized Nations. He asserted that the countries needed to work together to solve the common problems they face.

Oil has been a major concern for both the United States and Canada. In the 1960s low oil prices threatened the existence of the Canadian and American oil and gas industries. President Nixon and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau started talks in April 1969. The aim of the discussions was to develop an oil policy between America and Canada. Both countries studied their oil policies and prepared a review. President Nixon declared that he would assume responsibility for the oil import policy. Although the president may have given attention to the oil policy he failed to provide a clear course of action. The discussions by the two countries were marked by tactics with each group seeking to benefit the most from the policy.³

The American government observed that the Canadians were not keen on establishing a policy. The US continued with the talks hoping to persuade Canada to change its position. President Nixon placed temporary restraints on Canadian oil imports hoping to pressure Canada to take the talks more seriously.

The president’s tactic backfired as the Canadians responded by suspending the talks. The American cabinet claimed that Canada bought oil from the cheapest market; the Middle East and Venezuela and sold it to the highest market the US. America started to turn its attention to the Middle East. The Canadians sensed danger and sort to resume the talks. The Canadian Prime Minister gave a formal statement to the US that oil exports would be faced out in 1974.

The oil disputes between America and Canada continued. Canada was moving towards nationalism as opposed to interdependence as they had done in the past. In 1974 Canada decided to phase out all its oil exports and introduced the Canadian National Energy program. Canada had reversed from expanding the American oil market to phasing it out. This was mainly due to the politicization of energy during Prime Ministers Trudeau’s era. The new Canadian oil policy had adverse effects on the US. Most refineries in the Mid-West of America depended on the oil from Canada. The pipelines were also constructed to receive oil from Canada.

Hence new pipelines would have to be constructed or the refineries shut down. America fought the phasing out of oil through quite a diplomacy. America had in the past sort to establish self-reliance; although Canada’s move had a negative impact on America it would nonetheless not be fair to sabotage the self-reliance efforts of its neighbor. President Ford’s administration did not fight the Canadian oil policy as hard as expected. ⁴

Conclusion

The continued trade relationship and immigration between Canada and America have further strengthened their ties. The two countries have had disputes due to trade and the immigration and movement of people across their border has also been a subject of debate. Oil has been a cause of major disputes between America and Canada. The neighboring countries have had a British colonial history, animosity and then developed into allies, trade partners, and good neighbors. They have not always agreed on issues although they try to maintain a mutual relationship. The american-Canadian relationship remains a key issue of interest to both governments even to this day.

Reference:

Bruce W. Jentleson; Thomas G. Paterson. (1998). Encyclopedia of US Foreign Relations: International Affairs. Vol. 74, No. 1 pp. 165-183): Blackwell publishing.

Bothwell, Robert Title. (1980).Canada and the United States: The Politics of Partnership. New York: Rutledge press.

Graeme Mount and Edelgard Mahant (1984). An Introduction to Canadian-American Relations. Boston: McGraw hill press

Graeme S. Mount and Edelgard Mahant. (1999). Invisible and Inaudible in Washington: American Policies toward Canada during the Cold War.Boston: McGraw hill press.

James A. Desveaux. (1995). Designing Bureaucracies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Michael Dunne (1990). History and Historiography of American Diplomacy: Principles, Traditions and Values.Newyork: Oxford University press.

Footnotes

1. Graeme Mount and Edelgard Mahant (1984). An Introduction to Canadian-American Relations. Boston: McGraw hill press.
2. Graeme S. Mount and Edelgard Mahant. (1999). Invisible and Inaudible in Washington: American Policies toward Canada during the Cold War.Boston: McGraw hill press.
3. Bruce W. Jentleson; Thomas G. Paterson. (1998). Encyclopedia of US Foreign Relations. International Affairs. Vol. 74, No. 1 pp. 165-183): Blackwell publishing.
4. Bruce W. Jentleson; Thomas G. Paterson. (1998). Encyclopedia of US Foreign Relations. International Affairs. Vol. 74, No. 1 pp. 165-183): Blackwell publishing.

Introduction

In any training and development, there are important things that a person has to keep in mind this is because like the training of a president it is the role of a person to ensure that he or she gives the right training that will influence the president that what you are doing will be important in controlling the operations that take place in the country. In training then the president should have well-set questions on the basic areas that he needs to be trained on.

Main body

Therefore it is important for a trainer to have those to be trained been keen so that they can know the areas that require amendments. In this, I mean that a person should be able to liaise with colleagues to ensure that all materials contain current practices, should be able to manage and undertake the development of training courses and maintain close contact with field trainers. This is very important as in the training department then a president will be in need of knowing the changes that will be required so that they can have changes in the right direction. This will mean that if he will not keep in touch with the trainer then it will not be possible to know what exactly the trainer is talking about. A trainer is required to understand the competency gaps and ensure that the courses that are offered will address training requirements and undertake the delivery of soft skills training; one has to evaluate the training. With these requirements then a trainer will be in a position to ensure that what he or she will provide for training will benefit the concerned person so that they can see the benefit of training. The president therefore should be in a position to ask questions of training that is important so that he can know why things have not been going the way it has been required. In this, I mean that been a trainer then it is your task to ensure that the information that you give to the president is of importance to him so that he can be impressed with the training. In training then development has to be involved in development I mean that after training has been done then one will have to see changes that will show that the training has been of importance. This means that in a training then one will have to know how to manage time so that if they are people top be trained then they know the important point that will lead to success. This training is very important to the president as he should be able to have people who can carry out their actions just in a manner that they will not have to be supervised. Therefore in training this president then he should have a follow up of the importance of time schedule as it will guide others in taking their work with a lot of concern. In this, I mean that in a training then new ideas and knowledge is received as the trainer will have made a research on the areas that the president would like to be trained on. Therefore in training then it is very important as there will be a change in ideas and the way people have been viewing things. This will change everything that is in the training department. In a training then there should be devices that have to assist a person so that they can take the training and be of standard in this then a trainer will have to ensure that the materials that are required are in place so that they have the training that is accepted by all. A trainer should be a professional in that field this is because in a training one will have to meet people of different levels of education and this will mean that if one does not have education and skills in this fields of training then it will not be possible for him or her to give the right direction and guidelines to the person who has to be trained. Therefore been a professional in the training field then you will have information that will be higher than the person to train and this will keep this person in a position that he will be impressed on the training that is offered to him or her. A training to be successful should have changes made frequently which will mean that it will be of importance as it is a world of changes therefore in a training then the program that is set should not be fixed to creative ideas but should be flexible so that the information that is given to a person who is to be trained is of standard.

Therefore in training a person should get new ideas that will assist him or her to make changes in life this is because one gets training so that he or she can be able to advance in life therefore after training then one should be able to make changes in life. Therefore a training and development field is very important and should be kept for all to know the importance that is placed to a training program. A trainer therefore should have a plan that will assist him or her so that one will have a time plan for each one. This plan is very important because it will guide a person in coming up with information that is current and does not depend on old information. Therefore an in a training program then a plan is very much important and should give a direction to the person who has to take this role of training others. There should be examples given to a person that is trained these examples should be linked with the idea that this person requires if for example, a person wants to be trained on how to start a business then in the training there should be the guidelines that are important in starting a business this will lead to such a person knowing the importance of things that a business should have if they have to succeed in their operation. Therefore in any training that has to be done then there should be ideas that are linked with what a person is in need of.

Conclusion

The main idea for training is to get more informed about changes that take place this will mean that if a person does not see the changes and the way through to deal with these changes then the training will be of no importance to such a person. It is therefore very important for a trainer to be keen on training others so that they can have something change in whatever they do and this will give them an impression why they should have training frequently.

It is fascinating to note that 54% of registered voters are women. However, since 1789 all American presidents have been men. Some analyst argue that women for past many decades, they have not been in a position to shape out much liberty on the top floors of any venture, in any country or society in the history of the world. With no disbelief, they’ve made marvelous development in the past three decades, but the statistics are still tiny. According to a survey done in 2007, ‘merely 60%of men and 56% of women think that United States is prepared for a woman president’. This political paper will attempt to capture some of key reasons that different scholars have given as to why they support or oppose the idea of having a woman as president in the United States. Just as men, I believe that women have an ‘equal right to become president of the United States’. (Myers 2008).

This debate seems to have been fueled by one Senator Hillary Clinton, a former first lady who is now battering it out with Senator Barrack Obama for the democratic nominations. If Senator Clinton is lucky to become the democratic nominee and is elected as president of United States then she would make history by becoming the first American woman to become president in the land, thus the current debate if U.S. is ready for a woman as their president. In the United States, millions additional women vote as opposed to men, however women only make around 16% of the U.S, Senate. Barely eight of the nation’s fifty governors are women. In other countries example United Kingdom they have had a woman on the top most seat: Margaret Thatcher, with other countries having women serving as heads of states or head of government, though the number is still incredibly small. (Bolen 2005).

Some people put it that it would be very straightforward to argue that ‘men haven’t done a creditable as heads of states’ especially in United States, to support this argument they try to argue it out that the last century was the bloodiest in history, due to increased cases of war, terrorism, religious radicalism, miserable poverty, and illness. However, they go on to justify themselves that this does not mean that all the above have been all men’s responsibility but the bottom line is that they have been in control, still it does not seem much closer to finding answers to these deep and troublesome problems.(Darrow 2005).

Those who support the idea of having a female president in United States argue that: if American was to have a woman a for a president then every thing would change since this would mean that, political affairs would be friendlier. Businesses would be more dynamic and more so communities would be improved. Having a female president in U.S. would mean women empowerment thus making America a better place not since as a result those women are the equal as men, but specifically because they are different in how they deal with dissimilar issues.

They argue that women are likely to be better communicators, enhanced listeners and good at forming harmony. (Shakespeare 2004).

Others insist that in an ‘extremely spirited and ever more awkward world’, women are better placed for decisive analytical skills that are immediately required to break down barriers, put up understanding, and generate the best environment for peace.Some believe that time has come for United States to have a female. They argue that with current country status which range from been bogus, so challenging to being so hard on those that have made untimely mistakes in life, it is the moment for change. With a woman president they argue that this would offer optimism for the country, second chance, love and peace. If a female was given the chance to be in charge, some think that things would really change. Instead of pomposity, we’d have teamwork.’ Instead of stalemate, we would have improvement. Instead of uproar, dialogue’. This because women are likely to be more effective working across the aisles and are more realistic and results oriented. (Myers 2008).

Women also appear more concerned in consensus. They do look less inspired by the regular who’s-up-and-who’s-down score-keeping feature of the political game. As a result we would have a stronger financial system; and a sustainable nation, thus able to resolve conflicts and maintain the peace. Women have been ‘demonstrated to be better when it comes to intellect and decision making’. The majority of women would have honesty and regulation consequently would not descend other’s principles when offended. Therefore some women think that a female president is precisely what United States wants. (Washington Post 2007).

However, some experts caution that the candidates’ gender ought not to have a bearing on the election of leaders more so a president. We should vote for them on the basis of their leadership qualities. Those who oppose the idea of ‘United States having a female president base’ their arguments on the following issues: they argue that women the weaker gender and that their feeble shoulders are not in a position to carry the load of a state more so a super power. However this has been disputed by people who argue that contemporary times have revealed that women can tolerate more pressure and pain as opposed to men. (Headlee&Elfin 1996).

They are also those who feel that a female president does not appear as change to them since they do not see any special abilities that she would bring on board that have not been tried in the past. They on to point out that, there is still an illogical prejudice against women, since they have to have a drastically superior level of success to be considered capable at the equal level as men. At the presidential election level therefore, one could only envisage the ideal tightrope miracles that would be projected to make a lady to be voted to the presidency position. It is with ‘immense distress to note that some men particularly southern gentlemen’ still suppose that a woman’s place is in the kitchen, what is further unacceptable is the number of women who concur with them; hence this would make it very difficult for anyone to convince them to vote for a female president. Some feel that voting a woman would mean terrorist attacks from the Islamic fundamentalists who see women as nothing. While others argue that having a female president would mean doing everything that she says simply because she is a woman. There are also those who believe that having a woman as the president of U.S.is just not a fine idea, the reasons they offer range from the aspect that women are upset easily to it been harder for women to maintain their emotions in control. While there are those who resist this idea and dispute that the factor that women are easily hurt is just a stereotype. There go on to argue that, they are many women out there who are stronger and have superior thoughts than any gentleman. (Whitley 1998).

I think that any normal born, effective, U.S. adoring, compassionate, and intellectual citizen in the United States have the right to become President, this should not depend on sex, race, religious conviction, color or faith, because this would mean a free state which our soldiers fought for so hard for, since they believed in the constitution and what it stood for. Therefore, it is ‘unacceptable to note that people do not like strong women because they see them as threat’, more so the men who always seem to put their ego first. Time has therefore, come for America to pay respect to all millions of woman who with a great deal of power and persistence have lastly achieved the position and the condition they deserve in our society. It is time that United States gave a better say to women. (Nathanson&et al 2002).

I have always alleged that women could rule this nation. As far back as I can bear in mind, it has seemed apparent to me that women were, in fact, every small piece as competent as men in nearly all activities, and better than them in some. Of course, the result that ‘men are superior to women’ at a few things also seemed noticeable. Gender is totally irreverent about being a president or being an excellent leader. Other countries have previously ‘broken down the sex obstacle’ to the high office, such countries include India, Israel, Germany, Pakistan, Britain, among others. Hence, United States should give a woman the chance to lead the most dominant state in the world. Change is always good, let’s go for it. All American needs are a leader with a vision for the American people, some one smart and strong, it does not matter if it is a lady or a man. (Mccusker&Pecknold 2004).

Reference

Bolen, J.2005.Urgent Message from Mother: Gather the Women, Save the World.Conari.ISBN:1573242659.

Darrow, C.2005.Closing Arguments: Clarence Darrow on Religion, Law, and Society. Ohio University Press.ISBN:0821416324.

Headlee, S. &Elfin, M.1996.The Cost of Being Female. Greenwood Publishing Group.ISBN:0275955362.

Mccusker, K. &Pecknold, D.2004.ABoy Named Sue: Gender and Country Music. Univ.Press of Mississippi.ISBN:1578066786.

Myers, D.2008.Why Women Should Rule the World: A Memoir. HarperCollins Publisher.ISBN:0061140406.

Myers, D.2008.Why Women Should Rule the World LP: A Memoir.Harpercollins.ISBN:0061363960.

Nathanson, P&ET al.2002.Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular. McGill-Queen’s Press MQUP.ISBN:0773522727.

Shakespeare, W. &ET al.2004.Much Ado about Nothing. Nelson Thornes.ISBN:0748786031.

Washington Post.2007.The Female Factor-Behind the Numbers.

Whitley, D.1998.Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-processual and Cognitive.Routledge.ISBN:0415141605.

America is a country that has had the role of World Police thrust upon itself. My country did not ask for it, neither did we strive to achieve that position. It just happened. Why did it happen? Maybe it is because Americans are naturally tender hearted and caring people. Or perhaps it stems from our natural desire to see the world treating everyone equally regardless of rank and station in life. Indeed, my nation stands tall above the rest because of the way we value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, frowning upon those who wish to trample upon the most basic rights of these individuals.

Pick up any world history book and one will realize that the American dominance of the international scene never stemmed from what President Barack Obama has termed the “arrogance” of our nation. We have never, in the history of the world, been a conqueror country. We do not dictate, we do not conquer. Rather, we are like parents who gave birth to freedom in a foreign land. We are merely guardians of countries with its democracies in its infant stages. If by guiding the nations who are only beginning to get their footing regarding international relations now, and advising them upon how to conduct themselves on the world stage sounds like arrogance, then why is North Korea continuing to defy American and United Nations requests for disarmament? Why did they just launch a missile into the Asian skies? If America were arrogant enough to bully such kinds of nations into bending to our will, then the world would have been a much safer place by now.

Under President George W. Bush, America came to be viewed as bullies who did not listen. His “If you are not with us then you are against us” policies truly sounded threatening and menacing coming from the only remaining superpower in the world. However, I believe that his actions spoke well of the needs of his presidency. He was a wartime president who was trying to bring peace and stability to regions of the world rocked by religious fanaticism the best way he knew how.

President Barack Obama has chosen the foreign policy path that allows him to take the path of least resistance amongst the international community. His foreign policy of listening before taking action would have been much more effective if he had actually taken decisive action, clearly indicating the point up to which he is willing to listen before sacrificing a whole continent’s safety when the real bully is rearing its ugly head.

On paper, his foreign policies sound admirable. However, I do not believe these are doable as the countries he wishes to break bread with and smoke the peace pipe with have always taken an adversarial stance against America regardless of whether our president has been a Republican or a Democrat. Even if he gets Russia to agree to continue with nuclear disarmament, the other smaller rogue nations will continue with their arms build up. In such cases, the country will have to take a stronger stance on foreign policies concerning those nations and be accused of “arrogance” and “bullyism” yet again.

President Barack Obama must understand that, just like with some delinquent youths of the land, an iron hand becomes necessary in order to set one upon the right path which will benefit the many. Listening to the concerns of the other nations is never bad. Finding a halfway point upon which we can rebuild our foreign relations is not bad either. What is bad, is when you do not deliver a strong enough message to the nations whose actions are truly arrogant and reek of bullying to stop their ill-advised actions before they endanger the whole world.

Introduction

After Barrack was elected the President of the United States of America, the public expectations of his success in bringing positive change in the country were far much greater than they had ever been for any other American president who came before him. According to the Associated Press-GfK’s poll, it was found that over 60 percent interviewed believed that he would be a president who would be above average or even better including 30 percent who thought he would be the best president. This poll discovered a greater hope in people that the new president would assist in improving the country’s economy considerably to overcome the prevailing economic crisis. Over seventy percent were hopeful that the economy would be turned around during the first year of Obama’s presidency. More so, there was solid support of his economic plan in which almost a trillion US dollars were to be introduced in new spending, to be there tax cuts to revive the ailing economy, with about sixty percent having a belief that this would improve the economy to a considerable level (Gmillner, 2009, Para. 4 ).

The Americans sought after the focused, strong, efficient, and influential presidency that they saw in Barrack Obama (Rawlston, 2009, Para. 3). They were no longer interested in wars, especially those fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, causing America to be considered as the world’s number one enemy. Americans did not like this idea. They also did not want to continue living in continuous fright of terrorism; they were concerned about their security, wealth, and the general value of life. The expectations that Barrack Obama could enable them to realize these were very high and that was why he was elected as the president.

Americans Expect Much From the President Today

The Americans’ expectations from the president are still high despite some of the challenges he is currently facing. But still, it is very natural for any human being to encounter obstacles in the course of life, and indeed, the president can not be an exception. Ray (Para.1) agrees with the fact that people’s expectations of the president are currently high. He suggests that people are looking ahead to more from the president for the reason that he is a minority. But this should not be taken as a change of racism, but this is the way the American people are. since minorities, and not just black people but women and other groups as well, have gotten to elevated positions of duty only after working so hard, there is a tacit and most of the time unrealized prospect that these people will put much effort in doing their work.

The second reason for people having high expectations from the president lies in the state of affairs. The country gets itself in a terrible situation. Two wars are being fought: one in Afghanistan and the other in Iran and these wars are not just a walk-over, the country is handling the piracy that is widespread in the Gulf of Eden and the ailing economic state. Now, in this state, the expectations have to be high since radical measures have to be taken by the president since he has no otherwise to clear out this mess. The president can not just sit back and watch things crumbling down before his face.

Ray (Para. 2) also concurs with this idea of the president taking appropriate measures to turn things around. She suggests that regardless of people’s thoughts of the president in terms of his history trace, or his policies, the majority of the people are optimistic that he will have the appropriate machinery to bring the country into a more desirable state.

People’s expectations have also been brought to a higher level by the things the president has accomplished so far. Some of the positive changes include among others: the removing of the ban on stem cell research, bringing down payroll taxes, he gave an order to close Gitmo, he gave out unemployment benefits to the workers that had been on unemployment and signed the biggest stimulus bill in the American record. The list is long. From this, point of fact, the American people are increasing their expectations of the president and not bringing them down (Ray Para.1). According to the USA TODAY/Gallup poll conducted recently shows that over seventy percent of those interviewed accept as true that things will be better in the country at the time Obama’s term expires. At the time when he completed his first one hundred days in office as president, his job-approval ratings were at sixty-three percent and the personal rating at seventy-three percent and this was according to the poll carried out by Gallup. These job-approval ratings of the president in his first term are the highest for Obama among the presidents ever since the time of Ronald Reagan who was rated at sixty-seven percent (Ray Para. 5). Also, Obama’s ranking is more positive than that of Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat, following his initial a hundred days in power (Lydia, 2009, Para. 5).

The president is going on to show his commitment to improving people’s lives in America. For instance, this is seen in his move to bring about health insurance restructuring that would provide more steadiness and security to those with the health insurance, and covering those not having it, and bringing down the cost of health care for the families, the business enterprises and generally, the government (Whitehouse, 2009, Para. 1). His commitment to living up to people’s expectations is also echoed in what he said when he was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He said that he received the award as a call for action in which all nations should face the widespread challenges in the current century and of course America inclusive (Anonymous, 2009, Para. 2).

Conclusion

To conclude, Obama entered the Whitehouse on the power of his assurance of positive changes. To the present, he still holds on to his promise. The Americans were mainly heartbroken because of the perception they were getting from all over the world as an unscrupulous country that kept bullying others. Well, we understand that the president is a human being too and may have his weaknesses but as Americans, we do believe that sooner or later we shall realize the change we need to be brought about by the president. Below is a summary of points indicating that people expect much from the president today:

• There is hope that the president will have to live to people’s expectations by working very hard. Originating from the minority and ascending to such a position of power calls for someone who is naturally industrious and strives to realize the set goals.
• So far, the president has brought about several positive changes among them being giving out unemployment benefits to the unemployed workers, bringing down payroll taxes, just to mention but a few. This sets a base on which people have to stand their future expectations.
• People have great expectations from the president about taking radical measures to turn around the situation in terms of clearing the financial crisis, dealing with wars in Iran and Afghanistan, handling the widespread piracy in the Gulf of Eden among other issues.
• By the president receiving the Nobel Peace prize, it has instilled confidence in the American people that the president has to maintain his standards as a worldwide recognized leader and will have to make the necessary efforts to reciprocate through delivering his promises.
• The high job-approval rating of sixty-three percent for president Barrack Obama at his first a hundred days in office in comparison to other Presidents during their first hundred days in office since the time of President Reagan is a clear indication that people have great confidence in the president that sooner or later he will have to deliver to their desires, and can not be hopeless about such a president.
• The president’s plan to restructure health insurance to bring about stability and security to those with health insurance, and to cover those not having it, and bringing down the cost of health care to families and business enterprises is good news to every American and they have no reason to look forward to full implementation of such a wonderful plan.

Works Cited

Anonymous, Obama says Nobel an ‘Affirmation of American Leadership’, Honolulu Advertiser. Web.

Gmillner, Americans’ expectations for Obama are sky-high: Associated Press poll. Web.

Lydia saad, In the First a100 Days Obama Meets or Exceeds Expectations, Gallup.

Rawlston Pompey, President Obama Struggles and Expectations, Caribarena Antigua Barbuda. Web.

Ray, C. Are Americans Lowering their expectations of the President? 2009. Web.

Whitehouse, The President’s plan, Health care, 2009.

Introduction

Any kind of talk regarding the power relation between the Office of the President and the U.S. Congress requires a basic clarificatory remark, that the genesis for this relationship originates with the establishment of the United States as an independent nation. It was after the American Revolution when the founding fathers created the US Constitution. The said document did not only ensure the freedom of American citizens, the statutes and legal concepts therein made it difficult for the emergence of tyrants or dictators. Thus, the separation of powers between the U.S. Presidency and the U.S. Congress was a mandatory minimum. Nevertheless, as the decades went by, the realities of international politics and the inherent uniqueness of the Federal Government as a governing power over 50 American states inadvertently created changes in the power relationship between these two branches of government. The best way to explain these changes requires the amalgamation of ideas coming from Greenberg and Neustadt.

The Original Framework that Defined the Power Relation Between the Presidency and the U.S. Congress

It is important to underscore the genesis of the power relation that existed between the U.S. Presidency and the U.S. Congress. In other words, it is imperative to understand the context of the separation of powers between these two branches of government. The gulf that separates the Presidency and Congress was by design, in accordance with the legal requirements stated in the U.S. Constitution, a political set-up envisioned by the founding fathers. It had something to do with the main concern that hovered over the newly independent nation in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Before the United States was granted its freedom, it emanated from a geopolitical landmass characterized by European colonies. The North American continent was in principle the properties of Great Britain and France. However, the monarchy that controlled a significant portion of present-day America was wearing the British crown. Thus, after securing independence from its English overlords, the leaders of the fledgling nation made sure that the first order of the day was to establish a democracy. In order to make sure that the new government was not susceptible to takeovers from tyrants or despots, the powers to govern the land was subdivided into three major institutions, and these are the executive, the judiciary and the legislative branches of government.

In principle, the U.S. Congress is more influential and more powerful than the U.S. president. Greenberg and Neustadt were correct when they asserted that the founding fathers did not envision the U.S. Presidency to have the political clout and preeminence that it is imbued in the present time. It is not hard to agree with this view, because one can make the argument that the founding fathers were thinking of an administrator or some sort of general manager when they created the position of the U.S. president.

The Best Argument: Greenberg and Neustadt

It does not require a political scientist to perceive that there is little similarity between the presidency of George Washington and the presidency of the popular presidents of the 20^th century, such as Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan. Thus, one can argue that a seismic shift had occurred with regards to the power relation between the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Presidency. For example, it is hard to imagine how the U.S. Congress could have swayed Roosevelt when he declared war on the Germans. It is difficult to consider an alternative scenario when Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb. It is also difficult to imagine how the U.S. Congress could have prevented nuclear war during the time when the United States created a blockade to control the flow of products and armaments towards Cuba. It was all the result of Kennedy’s political clout. During all these critical chapters in U.S. history, it seems that the U.S. Congress took a backseat every time the nation demanded a leadership that knows how to handle a particular crisis.

After considering the gap in the power relation between these two branches of government, the best way to explain the evolution of the U.S. Presidency is to leverage the ideas found in the article written by Greenberg and Neustadt. Greenberg made an emphatic point when he said that although the president is not a monarch, he is accorded the respect and honor of a king. The beauty of Greenberg’s argument is not the fact that he pointed out the similarity between a sitting U.S. president in the 20^th century and a king, but in the assertion that circumstances surrounding the president and the American people compelled the Commander-in-Chief to embrace the said dual roles. This assertion is even true today when the incumbent American President had to contend with the founding fathers’ outdated ideas on how to handle the responsibilities of the executive office. In other words, the U.S. president cannot afford to act like another spoke in the wheel of government so to speak when the nation is under the threat of terrorism or nuclear holocaust.

Neustadt touched on the kingly power of the president when he described how former President Truman was able to get his way even if restrictions were placed to limit the president’s power. Truman’s executive order to drop an atomic bomb that obliterated two foreign cities was unparalleled even if people compare it to royal edicts that declared war on foreign enemies.

The Worst Argument is from Huntington; The Less Persuasive Argument is from Wildavsky.

The worst argument is from the article authored by Huntington. The main weakness of his explanation as to the root cause of the changing power of the relationship between the U.S. Presidency and the legislative branch of government was at best the assertion that the separation of powers was at work. At its worst, his argument leads to nowhere. It was difficult to substantiate his assertion that the U.S. Congress was in an unwinnable position because the frustrations of U.S. congressmen to accomplish something significant is not due to a failure in leadership. This frustrations that the congressmen felt in the failure to enact certain laws was due to certain limitations set by the legislative system. On the other hand, Wildavsky’s argument was less persuasive but no less truthful. His ideas simply stated the obvious and did not offer something insightful compared to Greenberg and Neustadt’s articles.

Conclusion

Greenberg and Neustadt offered the best explanation for the changing power relationship between the U.S. Presidency and the U.S. Congress. They were correct in citing the impact of the circumstances unique to the 20^th century’s political and economic environment. In addition, they were correct in stating that in an inadvertent manner, the reaction and desires of the American people compelled the evolution of the U.S. Presidency in order for the president to act as if he is the head of state and the head of government all rolled into one. Wildavsky did not offer anything inaccurate, however, he simply described the obvious. Huntington, on the other hand, was unable to offer anything concrete. In fact, all he did was to confirm that the separation of powers was working even in the present time.