The article by Ralph Ellis “Puerto Ricans fire back at Trump for critical tweets” reviews the recent crisis in Puerto Rico and the President’s response to it. The article was published in CNN, which is among the key news sites used by the American public to obtain information on current events. The audience of the piece is thus varied and consists of people of various ages and occupations who are interested in news on public matters. The primary purpose of the article is to outline the responses to Trump’s posts on social media criticizing the relief efforts undertaken by the Puerto Rican officials.
Ellis explains that the conflict between the President and the San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz was initiated by the call for more aid from the U.S. government. In her speech, Cruz stated that the people of Puerto Rico are on the verge of dying and begged the U.S. government agencies to send more help. She has also criticized the current scope of the government’s involvement in the relief efforts in Puerto Rico (Ellis).
The statement provoked a series of tweets made by President Trump, expressing skepticism and disapproval of the Puerto Rican officials and their calls for more aid. In particular, the President wrote that the leaders of Puerto Rico “want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort” (Ellis). The tweets led to an outrage among the Democratic leaders and the public, including the residents of Puerto Rico. In particular, people involved in the recovery efforts voiced their support of the mayor and criticized the President for his tweets.
There are three main lessons that can be learned from the event. First of all, it is crucial for the government to establish a thorough involvement in disaster relief and to inform the public of the efforts in an official manner. This would have helped to ensure that the people are aware of the U.S. government’s participation in emergency management efforts, thus reducing public outrage. Secondly, the leaders have to ensure responsible use of social media and effective communication in the aftermath of a crisis.
Refraining from posting critical responses to the Mayor’s call for aid could have prevented the conflict. Lastly, it is necessary to ensure that the help provided by government agencies is sufficient to address the needs of the population in crisis. At the time of the event, only 5% of electricity, 33% of the telecommunications infrastructure, and 50% of water resources had been restored in Puerto Rico (Ellis). Providing enough aid to speed up the recovery process would have assisted the government in maintaining a positive image.
Overall, the article exemplifies all of the Unit objectives by providing an example of incorrect reaction to a major crisis. As evident from the article, insufficient disaster management can damage the leader’s reputation and lead to a public outrage. Efficient communication, on the other hand, can help the government and public safety organizations to maintain a positive image and be more effective in helping those affected by the disaster.
Lastly, the article also shows the importance of the responsible use of social media by leaders and officials. Social media platforms are a critical source of information for many people; controversial posts or responses can damage the reputation of the leader, thus affecting politics and public opinion.
Trends in law enforcement change every year and depend on the legitimate President of the United States of America who follows a certain policy. These improvements are considered to make the work of police departments better and more beneficial for regular citizens. The following paper will discuss five trends of law enforcement in the year of 2017.
Discussion
The first trend implies the improvement of various partnerships between the national police and other community organizations. This collaboration might increase the community members’ and regular residents’ contribution to different law enforcement activities. In particular, the police departments will share their public safety strategies with other people to make them aware of certain forthcoming changes. This might let other individuals help resolve national problems or crimes. Also, the officers will be more polite to the people who they are obliged to work with, whereas their cultural norms and personal values should improve.
Another trend is that law enforcement agencies will reconsider their approaches to the forcing practices that are intended to ensure accountability and transparency of a separate case. The use of force by the police was discussed at the professional and public debate event. It appears that some citizens and small businesses are not satisfied with the particular forcing actions of officials. Therefore, police officers should be more cautious and careful with citizens who do not follow the country’s law. From now on, people who work at the U.S. police departments are expected to have expository conversations with the residents who accidentally break the law or are not aware of certain governmental regulations.
The next trend is intended to show that police officer remain the community members as well as regular citizens. Unfortunately, many employees of law enforcement agencies were neglected and often referred to as enemies by people who had a chance to face their legal competencies. However, it is time to change the situation described above as police officers have the same rights and freedoms as other residents of the United States of America. Their professional actions will demonstrate more respect for other people. In turn, the individuals who work for the police also want to be respected by those whom they protect daily.
Another trend is caused by the concerns of active social networks and Internet users. People who share private files and information are not satisfied with the fact that their messages are monitored by law enforcement agencies. The citizens were discouraged because their rights and freedoms were violated. Therefore, the control of people’s online conversations will be significantly reduced.
The last trend resolves the problem of the ineffective use of new technologies by police officers. The government will stop investing a tremendous amount of finances in the additional equipment of law enforcement agencies’ employees as this policy does not seem to be beneficial. The efficiency of the police departments’ work did not show better results with the use of innovative gadgets. Therefore, officials will be obliged to raise the rate of their productivity without implementing new technologies.
Conclusion
Basing on the regular citizens’ concerns and the U.S. President’s policies, some professional activities of police officers should be reconsidered. For instance, the control over mass media and its users’ private messages will not be as intensive as it was before. As police officers protect and defend the country’s residents from possible harm or criminal actions, they want other people to respect them as well. Moreover, law enforcement agencies will become closer to people and more loyal to those who break the law accidentally.
Many scholars and observers have claimed that President Ronald Reagan was more of a facilitator than a spectator. These sentiments could be attributed to his success in handling crises, notably the air traffic controller’s strike in 1981. Reagan treaded on murky waters of going against what other presidents had feared and avoided before; confrontation with union workers, managing to successfully fire Air Traffic controllers. The threat came in Reagan’s early time in office, testing his ability to maneuver such a crisis, with the workers union that had put its position rigid for any further agreement.
Many have argued that the incident expressly exposed Reagan’s willpower, while others cite effective communication that the President employed to his favor, winning the support of ordinary Americans. While both claims may be true, it is also important to note that the union’s early hard stance could have played a role in Reagan’s response, countering ‘hard stance’ with ‘hard stance’. Realistically, the President may have assessed the ability of the Union in terms of communicating their message and noted that it held no substance, considering the fact that the strike was against the law.
Introduction
History tells us that every administration has its defining moments; others experience several of those moments. It is possible to remember Reagan Administration for many things, but the one event that remains in the psyche of every American is the discharge of federal air traffic controllers for failure to follow a presidential directive to return to work. During the summer of President Reagan’s first year in office, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration, called a strike to start on August 3, 1981, to demand higher wages, a shorter work weak, and better retirement benefits (Nordlund, 1998). The Threat of a strike became a test of Reagan’s famous willpower and his stated position that unions alone would not determine what happens in labor-management disputes (Nordlund, 1998). Emphasizing that it was illegal for them to strike, Reagan left no doubt beforehand that if the controllers went out, they would be fired. In fact, President Ronald’s stand was that there would be no compromise- there would be ‘no amnesty’ for those participating in a walkout, nor would there be any negotiations during a strike (Nordlund, 1998). Nordlund (1998) states that Reagan showed a strong will in the way he communicated his messages, hence instilling a notion of goodwill and power (p.12).
The drama leading up to the event and the national trauma that followed provide a poignant picture of misjudgments in the negotiations. In fact, some economists and federal officials predicted that a prolonged strike would have a devastating national economic impact (McCartin, 2008). Probably they were drawing their judgments from historical examples of workers in critical industries that struck and made it stick. Teachers, police, postal workers, sanitation workers, and others, had used the strike weapon effectively as a vehicle for squeezing more concessions out of management- generally public sector management (Edwards, 2006). This paper critically highlights how President Reagan used his constitutional power to successfully dismiss the air traffic controllers and the weakness of the union that represented these workers, The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO).
Breakdown of Communication
There are differing opinions as to how the Federal Aviation Administration Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (FAA-PATCO) situation evolved into one of overt and direct confrontation. How did the situation gravitate into one from which there was no return? Some people argue that the president was simply looking for a vehicle to use in making his inflexible opposition to union visible, and the air traffic controllers happened to be the first in line (McCartin, 2008b). Whether this assessment is true remains to be seen; however, there is no doubt that the event was a culmination of the breakdown of communication between two feuding parties. This is because there can be no question that the PATCO and the FAA were in conflict over just about every issue, as several types of research had shown (McCartin, 2008b).
Approaches Negotiating Crisis
The FAA-PATCO debacle is a perfect example of how personalities can change the approaches to conflict resolution and negotiation. Long before formal negotiations began, the FAA administrator was on a whirlwind tour of the country making speeches about the overpaid and underworked controllers (McCartin, 2008). Klein (2008b), citing the sentiments of White House Press Secretary Larry Speakes, states that the decision to fire the controllers had been made a few days earlier and; the president was firm from the outset (p.19). As federal employees, the controllers were subject to a no-strike clause in their contracts. The derivative of this law stemmed from a congressional action in 1955 that made such strikes a crime punishable by fine or one year of incarceration. In 1971, this law was tested but upheld by the Supreme Court (Nordlund, 1998).
In an interview, Speakes recalled, “I told the press that the President was doing the right thing- he is enforcing the law” (Nordlund, 1998). The press secretary had to emphasize the news to blame the union for breaking the law. “I told the press that everything would be alright and that the striking controllers would be replaced as quickly as possible. I said the president would not bend. It was a show of strength. I said that it’s good for the country” (Nordlund, 1998). The union, on the other hand, attempted to argue that its working conditions, retirement program, and other aspects of the work environment, for example, the old and unreliable Automated Data Processing equipment, were the major issues important to PATCO members (McCartin, 2008). While many people outside the PATCO would confirm that all or most of these problems had merit, the union was unable to counterbalance the administration’s public relations program effectively. It, therefore, followed that the American people were unable to determine what parts of the controllers’ agenda were real and that the one-dimensional caricature provided by the government, that is, money, was easy to understand (McCartin, 2008).
It may be that the air traffic controllers union was large enough to be visible, but not large enough to be irreplaceable in a relatively short period of time. The controllers may have been in an occupation in which the skills and training necessary to be effective are easily transferable to other motivated and capable employees.
Practically, people negotiate every day; conflict is an everyday event and reaching consensus is a critical destination only achieved through negotiations Fisher, Ury & Patton (1991). Fisher, Ury & Patton (1991) say that everyone wants to participate in decisions dictated by someone else; people differ and they use negotiation to handle their differences; and that although negotiation takes place every day, it’s never an easy process (p.xvii). People find themselves in dilemma. They see two ways to negotiate: soft and hard. Those who prefer soft negotiation will try to prevent any form of “confrontation and personal conflicts”, hence will easily give in to make consensus faster (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991). Conversely, the hard negotiator looks at all the situations in the perspective of competition and thus takes an “extreme” side and prolongs the process in the hope that a better outcome will emerge at last (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991). Fisher, Ury & Patton (1991) say that a hard negotiator wants to win; yet he or she often ends up producing an equally hard response that exhausts him or her, or even the resources at his or her disposal. Other standard negotiating strategies fall between hard and soft, but each involves an attempted trade-off between getting what you want and getting along with people (p.xviii).
Harvard Negotiation Project developed a third way of negotiation: Principled negotiation. This form of negotiation has been described as “neither hard nor soft, and both hard and soft” (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991, p. xviii). It, therefore, demands that the parties on the negotiating table should focus more on the inherent “mutual gains” and in case the individual demands conflicts, there should be a middle ground that is free from the influence of the two parties (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991).
The president’s Powers and Tactics
Several studies on the acrimonious relationship between the FAA management and its employees have been documented. Edwards (2006) observes that no one should believe that the union was without some responsibility in the creation and continuation of this difficult relationship. Many other studies also suggest that the union failed to calm the disagreement by aggregating it further and preventing the negotiation with FAA that would see important issues resolved (Klein, 2008b; Klein, 2008; McCartin, 2008). The President, through the power of the law, realized the weakness of the union and remained firm, probably in response to PATCO’s hard negotiation approach.
The president’s order ensured that major airlines reduced their operations by half to ensure the probability of unsafe incidences is minimized (McCartin, 2008). More than 45,000 people applied within four weeks after the strike began, and in a matter of weeks, approximately 80% of airline flights were operating as scheduled, while airfreight remained virtually unaffected (Klein, 2008b).
One would argue that Reagan’s tactic as represented by Speakes’ press statement was successful because the public did not support the strikers. Instead, it sided with the government and, in doing so, helped Speakes to enhance Reagan’s image as a strong and courageous leader. It did not take long before full service was restored and by 1984, air traffic increased by 6% while there were still 20% fewer controllers than had been on the job prior to the walkout (Klein, 2008a).
The Law and the Situational Bargaining
As observed, PATCO took an earlier stand on the unwillingness to change putting their positions that they would not accept anything less (Klein, 2008a). According to Hunt (2004), despite the fact that the initial position taken may be against the law, the negotiator’s continual hard stance on positions tend to lock them further into those positions; that the more you clarify your position and defend it over the attack, the more committed you become to it. Hunt (2004) states that at that point, “your ego becomes identified with your position…you now have a new interest in ‘saving face’- in reconciling future action with past positions- making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties’ original interests (p. 132).
While the factors leading to the strike and the government’s response to that strike are complex, the single aspect of the controller strike that seemed to cause the president the most distress was that controllers violated their written, signed an oath not to strike against the government of the United States (Edwards, 2006). The oath stated as thus:
“I am not participating in any strike against the government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof” (Edwards, 2006, p.49).
This statement may seem deceptively simple, but it became the driving force towards and during the period of strike, and evidently was the strength behind President Reagan’s decision to fire the controllers and not permit them to return to federal employment. Transport Secretary, Drew Lewis argued that the president considered the strike a “moral issue”, hence suggesting that the president felt that the controllers took an oath of office and failed to live up to their responsibilities to the American public (Edwards, 2006, p.58). Further, the President asked the rhetorical question, “If ever we feel that our oath of office need not be kept, how long would we have this society?” (p.59). Indeed, no one would deny that the controller’s strike was illegal; a violation of federal law. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1977 and Section 305 of the Taft-Hartley Act outlaw strikes by federal employees (Edwards, 2006).
Conclusion
The culmination of the controllers’ strike is a clear indication that the problem had reached a point of no return. While others may argue that the president was putting a hard-line stance to save his new power, it could be argued that the president’s reaction was simply a response to PATCO’s tough onset conditions that limited any opportunity to reach a consensus. The two sides’ tough stance led to communication breakdown and subsequent confrontation.
This is a classical example of personalities can transform the negotiation process. In fact, none of the earlier presidents had attempted to confront the labor unions successfully. The decision to fire the controllers was evidently based on the law of the United States. But this law was set earlier before the Reagan era and yet several unions had launched their strike successfully, paralyzing the operations of the state corporation.
It thus leads us to some critical negotiation strategies employed by negotiators; soft and hard negotiations strategies. Although many would argue that the action was more of a gamble than a strategy, it is possible to hypothesize that President Reagan assessed the ability of PATCO to paralyze the operations of the transport sector and came to a conclusion that it was minimal. He, therefore, responded to the hard negotiation tactics, backed by the law and the public and the desire to save face, to counter the union’s actions.
Reference List
Edwards, G. (2006). On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit. New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd edition). New York: Penguin Books.
Hunt, J. (2004). Organizational Behavior. London: Sage Publishers.
Klein, W. (2008a). All the Presidents’ Spokesmen: Spinning the New. Washington, DC: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Klein, W. (2008b). Silent Skies: The Air Traffic Controllers’ Strike. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
McCartin, J. (2008). Ronald Reagan, the PATCO strike, and the revival of the Imperial Presidency. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
The article “Remarks by the President on National Security” examines the issue of harsh interrogation techniques. The article explains why the United States should be part of the world. The country should always promote the best practices for the sake of every global citizen. The author explains why certain methods of interrogation might be necessary towards keeping every American citizen safe. The article rejects the use of these means of interrogation.
The author also explains why these practices undermine every moral law. The use of such interrogation techniques will alienate the country. The conclusion is that the country should avoid the use of every enhanced interrogation technique and close Guantanamo Bay prison (Remarks by the President on National Security, 2009). The article also explains some of these practices are unsustainable and ineffective.
I personally agree with the author’s argument. Many Americans have shared similar sentiments in the past. The world should reject different forms of torture. The country needs better incentives to deal with this problem. The article explains why the government should approach this debate from a positive approach.
Some methods of torture such as waterboarding might be effective. Such practices are “used to recruit terrorists in many societies across the world” (Hall, 2004, p. 56). The use of such methods of interrogation will encourage more terrorists to fight the Americans. The practice will also affect the country’s moral and ethical positions (Remarks by the President on National Security, 2009).
The article is agreeable because it explains how the United States should be ready to address this problem of terrorism. The best strategy is to understand the thoughts of every terrorist. According to Lauritzen (2013), such interrogation techniques will affect the country’s position in the globe.
These practices will also “decrease the will of other countries and societies to work with the Americans” (Lauritzen, 2013, p. 48). Most of the American soldiers will face similar torture and interrogation if the terrorists capture them. Such methods will affect the lives of many Americans. The continued use of certain interrogation techniques has not made the country secure. These methods have failed to advance the country counterterrorism efforts.
I would also support the author’s perspective because earlier thinkers have presented similar ideas. Torture can be a great tool for any given country. It increases the level of enmity between two nations. It is agreeable that any attempt to apply these interrogation techniques will place the country on the wrong side of history (Remarks by the President on National Security, 2009). The world is also transforming its operations and practices.
Every practice should reconsider the ethical foundations of every society or cultural group. Most of these methods of torture and interrogation are no longer applicable today (Remarks by the President on National Security, 2009). The best decision is to avoid most of these practices because they can affect the image of the country.
Most of the interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay are unethical. The prison has only convicted three prisoners within the last seven years. President Obama explains why the government should close this prison because it does not support the country’s approach to deal with terrorism. The article examines the expectations of every citizen in the world. The country should leave every old method behind in order to support the best ideas (Hall, 2014).
The president explains why the country should avoid every unethical interrogation practice. The article also explains why the president wants the prison camp at the infamous Guantanamo Bay closed. The American president is against the use of torture to interrogate different suspects. The outstanding fact is that such methods are immoral and violate the canon of law.
Reference List
Hall, D. (2014). Criminal Law and Practice. Cengage: Cengage Learning.
Lauritzen, P. (2013). The Ethics of Interrogation: Professional Responsibility in an Age of Terror. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Remarks by the President on National Security. (2009). Web.
Executive orders represent a power which has been utilized by all presidents of the U.S. except William Henry Harrison. This right, while sometimes used for minor events such as the proclamation of holidays and small changes to previously defined rules, can have a significant effect on the country’s law. Therefore, it often attracts the attention of people who believe that it disrupts the separation of powers given to the government’s different branches. The current President, Donald Trump, has issued a total of 63 orders since his inauguration till March 2018. This report will compare President Trump’s use of executive power to that of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and a number of past presidents. Moreover, it will discuss the possible reasons behind the current President’s actions, his relationship with Congress, examine three Executive Orders (EOs) and present a personal opinion about presidents’ powers.
Use of Executive Power: Comparison
As it was mentioned above, almost all presidents used this power and issued many executive orders during their time at the Office. The previous president, Barack Obama, had published 276 orders in eight years. This number is far from the largest one. The record belongs to President Franklin D. Roosevelt who created 3,712 of EOs. Other presidents with many EOs are Woodrow Wilson with 1,803 orders and Theodore Roosevelt with a total of 1,081 orders. These presidents were dealing with rather critical situations connected to the country’s political, economic, or social problems.
For instance, the majority of EOs from President Roosevelt was concerned with World War II. One of the most notorious examples is EO 9066 signed by Roosevelt in 1942. This order created internment camps for Japanese-American citizens due to the recent attack on Pearl Harbor. This decision affected the war and the nations’ population significantly, dividing Asian-Americans for many years and creating a disparity between the groups. The president’s previous EOs were much less discriminatory but also influential. EO 8802, for example, aimed to eliminate discrimination based on one’s race and religious beliefs in the employment of contractors.
Conflicts that happened more recently did not have the same level of devastation. In 2014, the situation in Ukraine was addressed by the President directly through a number of EOs. Several orders from President Obama focused on terrorism and cyberattacks. Thus, EO 13718 moved to strengthen the country’s cybersecurity. EO 13721 was signed to create an international organization that would engage in counterterrorism activities. However, other orders were also concerned with the environment, healthcare, charities, working conditions, and foreign affairs.
While President Trump’s term is still in its early stage, he has already issued a rather significant number of EOs, although much less than Roosevelt and Wilson. Many of these orders became topics of heated debates, including border security and immigration laws. Trump continues to focus on terrorism and domestic affairs. The attention to local manufacturers is especially interesting as Trump decided to govern the entry of foreigners to assist American citizens in improving their businesses.
Use of Executive Power: Reasons
It is possible that Trump’s decision to use his executive power instead of collaborating with Congress lies in the failure of previous actions attempted by the president. Trump’s campaign developed to undo what was done by the previous president may not be in line with the views of Congress. Moreover, this individualistic approach can also be based on President Trumps’ opinion on his position in the government and his active and direct approach. The disagreement between Congress members and the president could provoke the latter to use his other capabilities to enforce his decisions through EOs. In this case, Trump’s strategy may be to weaken Congress to work with it in the future. As the current president previously operated as a businessman, this approach can be the most familiar one to him. Thus, the misunderstanding of his necessity to collaborate with Congress to pass laws and gain more power is present.
Executive Orders Analysis
Example 1: EO 13788
The order “Buy American and Hire American” mentioned above deals with multiple efforts to support local manufacturers and businesspersons by restricting the opportunities of foreigners. According to this order, all entities should hire Americans as opposed to individuals coming to the country with a nonimmigrant visa H-1B and support manufacturers of local products. This order demonstrates the original ideology of Trump’s presidential campaign as it reveals the focus on national businesses and the opposition to foreign workers. While it does not prohibit foreigners from finding jobs, it stresses the importance of making the process of selection more rigorous for non-Americans. Similar laws already exist in the system. Thus, the notion to “buy American” is not new.
Nevertheless, the second part of this EO may be more interesting than the first, as it proposes to make the procedure of applying for an H-1B visa more challenging for both employers and potential workers. Notably, it also uses the word “aliens” while describing foreign candidates, which shows a negative implication of hiring non-Americans. It is possible that some changes in H-1B visa eligibility will affect industries that heavily rely on this program such as educational institutions, healthcare organizations, and technology developers. This EO was not challenged in court.
Example 2: EO 13769
This EO was a more discussed one as opposed to the previous case. EO 13769 called “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” was created as a way to close the borders of the United States to citizens from seven countries that were deemed unsafe by the president. These states included Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Other changes involved the suspension of USRAP – the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and the closure of borders to Syrian refugees. Upon its creation, the EO was called a “travel ban,” causing the public to protest its decisions and its discriminatory nature. Notably, the ban did not exclusively focus on immigrants and also prohibited regular residents of these countries from entering the U.S. Moreover, prior to the EO’s revision, green card holders were suspended at the border or unable to enter the country as well. During the period when this order was active, many visas were revoked and multiple airports were full of people unsure of whether they can enter the country.
The EO was challenged by the federal court. According to the officials, this EO was not acting in line with some national acts and the U.S. Constitution. First of all, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was taken as the basis to oppose the EO. The ban was deemed discriminatory to people because of their nationality and place of birth or residence. These arguments revealed numerous problems with enforcing this order. Furthermore, some implicit statements written in this EO were challenged by the Constitution’s notions regarding people’s religion and the right to due process. Although the text of the order did not express any religious opinions, many people thought that its focus on Muslim travelers might be discriminatory. This order was later superseded by EO 13780 and Proclamation 9645. Thus, these decisions are still disputed in court. However, the ban has already affected many families and persons who live or have relatives in the mentioned above countries.
Example 3: EO 13780
Following the discussion about the first version of the “travel ban,” one can analyze its second variant under the same name. This EO was issued to replace the previous one, but it contained many similar statements. For instance, it still aimed to suspend the refugee program and lower the number of refugees entering the country. Moreover, the list of countries which were deemed unsafe stayed the same with the exclusion of Iraq. It also gave more details about people who were allowed to visit the U.S. For instance, permanent lawful residents of the U.S. could enter the country. People with diplomatic visas and asylum statuses were exempt from the ban as well. However, the EO was still challenged for the same reasons as its previous version. The third rendition of the ban is active to this day.
Conclusion
In my opinion, this power given to the president may have both positive and negative outcomes. On the one hand, it may provide a source for fast decisions in situations of emergency. For example, some choices made during the times of conflicts can be seen as appropriate, although drastic, measures. Furthermore, many EOs do not affect the country’s development significantly. Some issues may be brought to the center of attention by the president. However, such use of this power can also damage the state of Congress as the main source of new laws. The amount of power given to one person should be limited in a country that values democracy so highly.
The two news articles under consideration tell us about Barack Obama’s trip to India. Though both of the articles are on the same exact topic: the historical visit of the United States’ President to India in order to establish mutually beneficial relationships there still are the differences in the authors’ views on the issues. Depending on the own opinions the two authors Julianna Goldman and Sheryl Gay Stolberg recreated events differently, including different issues in order to show the character and the outcome of the President’s travel. The two news letter authors described the events amazingly accurately. This is the main criteria to estimate the relevance of the articles to the pint of discussion.
Paper’s Focus
Needless to say, the attitude of the author plays the main role in the perception of the information presented. However, the foremost point that is to be stressed is that the difference of one and the same event depicted lies in choice of issues authors describe in their works. Namely, this paper will talk about how the lack of information influences the overall impression from the information told. Of course, the tone of the written works will also be unveiled.
Obama Backs Indian Bid for Permanent U.N. Security Council Seat
So, the article called ‘Obama Backs Indian Bid for Permanent U.N. Security Council Seat’ does discuss the ultimate purpose of the US President to acquire mutually beneficial relationship between the United State of America and India. The article explicitly praises American President and everything that he had been doing in India for the past three day visit. It is sort of report of everything done for the nation as a representative of the US. The main purpose of the article is to show the President’s best tries to perform the US as the helper to build a democratic, economically empowered, and strategic partner that is India. The leading idea is also that Barack Obama has ensured a bid of India to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The language used is extremely official, there are many quotes extracted from the President’s speech, and the overall impression about the professional charges the head of the government fulfills is pleasant.
Obama Backs India for Seat on Security Council
The second article under consideration is ‘Obama Backs India for Seat on Security Council’ by Sheryl Gay Stolberg. In the piece of this writing the difference is visible to the naked eye. The President’s efforts to establish economically beneficial relations with India and back it up in Security Council sounds nothing more than just a mere twaddle. There is no doubt in such an impression because the language and tone chosen for description are imposing enough. Besides, there are some facts drawn in order to prove that the speech given on the third day of India’s visit is just the idle talk. Although the members of the parliament greeted the speech with prolonged applauses it is hard to say that the speech was enough for actions to be taken. “But neither the president nor his top advisers offered a timetable for how long it would take to reform the council, or specifics about what steps the United States would take to do so.” (Goldberg. S.G.)
Conclusion
So, the two articles under consideration discussed the ten days’ visit of the US President to the countries of Asia, namely a third day in India and the speech given to the Indian parliament. Both pieces of writing claimed the President’s attempt to get India enrolled in the Security Council by providing a back up. However, the most interesting part is that Julianna Goldman (and James Rupert) had just a slight hint on the impracticability of the claimed offer in short period, whereas the other author unearthed the transparent hint on the issue being unable to come true: “… will be a complicated endeavor that will require the cooperation of other countries and could easily take years.” (Stolberg S. G.)
Works Cited Page
Goldman Julliana, Rupert James. Obama Backs Indian Bid for Permanent U.N. Security Council Seat. Businessweek. 2010, 9:03 AM EST.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. Obama Backs India for Seat on Security Council. NYTimes. 2010.
Down history lane, the U.S has had so many outstanding presidents. Among them are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Harry S Truman, George Bush and the current president Barack Obama. In their arrival to power, different administrations find that the socio political and economic issues of the nation differ. Examples of issues include the need for freedom of independence, world wars, world economic depression, cold wars among others.Thus the president will be considered strong or weak basing on how his admistration handled both the domestic policies in the state and foreign policies in the international arena. The president that leaves a legacy by offering a great credit in terms of preserving or protecting the U.S national interests be it domestic or the international arena through adopting relevant mechanisms or policies that suit the needs of the nation, is credited as the strong leader and vice versa. Consequently, this paper is largely going to look at one of the U.S’ strongest presidents and one who has been considered weakest basing on various assessment criteria that would be given in this paper. This paper will first kick off by looking at the strongest president and the assessment of why he is considered strong then later look at the weakest president and the basis of this consideration.
As one of the world’s greatest orators, Abraham Lincoln once said, ‘’With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations” (Hanser 32). Therefore I will look at Abraham Lincoln as the strongest U.S president and the assessement of him being considered strongest president in the U.S.The assessment will look at how his administration managed the domestic and international affairs. A quick history reminds us that Abraham Lincoln was a self made leader who struggled to seek for knowledge until he became the country lawyer. Thus it is quick to note that during the Abraham Lincoln administration the United States was experiencing the problem of internal crisis of cession which was particularly manifested in the American civil war, his effort of uniting the union of the member states and the efforts of ending the slavery in the United States.
The Abraham administration focused politically as well as militarily dwelt in re examining the strategies of how to unite the country due to effects of the threats of eleven members to the union wanted to secede from the union.Through the powers vested in him by the constitution unprecedentaly quashed the secessionist movements which was culminated through the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 that paved way for the amendment of the constitution of the united states that abolished the slavery in the U.S.The amendment that gave to that effect was a 13th one ever so made on supreme law of the United States of America. That amendment helped Abraham Lincolns administration to deal with the issue of ending the expansion of slavery in the United States at the border slave states by ensuring that senior and top military command generals were commissioned with heavy defence mission to control such slave border states. He controlled those states by appointing the generals who were to man such states (Hanser 75). For instance Abraham Lincoln appointed general Ulysses Grant among other prominent military generals were appointed to control and capture the confederate capital at Richmond during the American civil war.Importantantly we learn that Abraham Lincoln ensured that his cabinet were coerced in implementing the policies of his government especially when the Union was facing the secession from the confederate southern states which complained that they were being over exploited by the well industrialized northern states which were well vast with minerals and well established industries (Flaxman 72).
Thus the assessment of Abraham Lincoln as the strongest president that United states remains cemented in place in the sense that he overcame all criticisms from the left wing radical republicans who were against his moderate faction. Republicans had wanted a harsh action to be taken against the south democrats who were yarning for a compromise in the handling of the southerners who viewed the president as their stambling block in dealing with the secessionist. Abraham Lincoln reacted to such issues by taking a patronage view through the use of his gifted power of speech to appeal to his fellow country men and women to avoid pitting each other. Instead, he urged them to put the matters of national interest first and disregard racial and personal and selfish interest. Thus in his speech addressed at Gettysburg in 1863 showed how the U.S had embraced the focus on sound democratic principles like equal rights, freedom of liberty and the meaning of democracy were famous. The introduction of the policy of reconstruction in a moderate approach in order to heal the past injustice by encouraging the Americans to forget their past war experience and focus on the nation building made him to ranked as the best U.S president by the scholars of political scientists.
Next the paper now focuses on the weakest U.S president through the assessment in terms of how the domestic or foreign policies were managed. Before being elected as the 18th president of the United States Ulysses S. Grant had some great achievement in his military. For instance, during an early outbreak of the American civil war he was a colonel of the 21st Illinois Infantry that gave him victory in the capture of Fort Donelson,in Tennessee in 1862. As a major general he emerged in other battle victories.He became the commander of all union forces and after which in 1865 he served as the secretary of war (1867-8).During the ascend to higher office Ulysses Grant as the president was considered as the poorest president in U.S by the historian scholars. It was noted that Ulysses Grant government involved in the scams that greatly affected the management of his government the examples of the scandals include Belknap bribery of 1876 which was initiated by Grant’s secretary of war who took money at Indian posts from the Indian traders ,Black Friday scandal (1869) whereby Jay Gould and James Fisk bought large stocks of gold in the market reducing its value.This forced the Grant government to add more gold on the market economy with the soul purpose of reducing the price which affected many business in the country.
On the other hand Ulysses Grant administration failed in the reconstruction policies like for instance the federal troops occupied the South which was renowned for their attempts to pull away from the other confederal member states that formed up the union whose reason ranged from economic, social and political factors (Carpenter 27). He also launched war on states that denied the black race from voting.His administration made amendments that equipped people with voting rights despite the race. Further more in 1875, the Civil Rights Act came into effect enabling African Americans the freedom to access freely the social utilities However, the law was ruled unconstitutional in 1883.Lastly Grant administration was hit severe economic depression which led many businesses to collapse hence creating un employment crisis in the country during that period.
In conclusion it is quite clear to note how the two presidents handled the domestic affairs of the state. The proper management depends on the political will of the leader which gives a stronger president and vice versa.
Works Cited
Carpenter, John A. Ulysses S. Grant. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1970
Flaxman, Andrew. Great Thinkers of American History: A Study of the Spirit of Freedom and Liberty Through the Lives of Franklin and Lincoln. New York: Gifted Education Press, 1989.
Hanser, Richard. Meet Mr. Lincoln. Golden Press, 1960
Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, and John Adams are all well esteemed in America for having served as presidents in the American state at some point in time. Abraham Lincoln and James Madison served the nation as presidents for two terms, while John Adams served the nation for just one term. There existed various issues that were evident during the assumption of power and the reign of each of the aforementioned presidents. In order to understand these important issues, we shall discuss several aspects, including the president’s backgrounds, campaigns and elections; domestic and foreign affairs.
Some factors, which affect how presidential candidates conduct their activities, include prior experience in campaigning for lower offices before seeking for the presidency and the mode of office occupancy. By the mode of office occupancy, I mean, whether the candidate assumed the office by the virtue of being the vice president at the time of the president’s death or whether the candidate was actually engaged in active politics so as to win the seat by means of his active and fruitful efforts.
When presidents assume their offices, they encounter numerous domestic and foreign issues. Some of these issues could have been prevalent even during their campaigns while others emerge during their rule. For the prevalent issues, it is most likely that the leader had laid down policies on how to tackle them, in form of manifestos, during the campaigns. Hence, the leader needs to follow his policies so as to gain his electorate’s trust. For the emerging issues, the leader has to structure new policies of handling them.
Taking all the aforesaid into consideration, I will note that in my work I have the primary purpose to research what makes a good president taking into account the facts from John Adams, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln presidency, their backgrounds, election campaigns, domestic and foreign affairs in particular.
Backgrounds
In order to understand how these three men became presidents, I did a lot of research on their backgrounds. I think that all of them started to develop their individual characteristics, which helped them to get to the top of their live performance, during childhood and early career life. From the research, I learned that a person should be a leader to become a president. Leadership is a very important characteristic that can be developed and strengthened, or be naturally part of the personality. First of all, to become a president of the United States, a person should be native-born. Adams, Madison and Lincoln were born on the territory of the United States, but at different times. All of them spent their childhood years at the farm. Then life was harsh and dangerous, and they had to face tough challenges. Accordingly, they learned to be independent and face problematic times from a very young age. Their minds were more imaginative and more interested in building a better life, especially, when they got to the president’s office. During their childhood, James Madison was growing not a healthy boy. He stayed close to his mother’s side. He was painfully shy. John Adams growing up was frustrated internally most of the time. But he was very honest in his feelings and thinking.
He was very much human. Abraham Lincoln, probably, had a more tough childhood than both James Madison and John Adams. He had to work constantly to support his family. Lincoln was very determined in his goals. With limited resources and despite hard work, he was self-educated. Abraham’s love for reading books made some people think that he wanted to avoid manual labor. His stepmother encouraged his reading and always pushed him to improve his knowledge. As Abraham Lincoln had a hunger for knowledge so did John Adams and James Madison. James Madison reportedly read books from his father’s library. All three were successful students and had many interests in studying history, philosophy, languages, theology, and law. For instance, James Madison had a big interest in history and government, but he was well-read in law. With his academic background in history and government, Madison played a significant role in his work as author of the Constitution. John Adams was a writer at heart. In his early years, his diaries were full of various events and happenings in his world. He was always doing battle with his own failures. That was a base for Adams’ later memoirs, recollections, and arguments. Lincoln mastered the Bible in his early life, but later Lincoln quoted from the Bible in his speeches, which made him popular. Growing up on the farms and plantations, their young minds were terrified by slavery. Eventually, theirs views on the horrors of slavery were reflected in their political careers. In Lincoln’s example, who hated all aspects of slavery, it became the greatest goal of his life to destroy it. The youthful experiences of Adams, Madison, and Lincoln are credited with shaping them as leaders. Being able to take on the great responsibilities of running an entire country without leadership skills, would be impossible. Lincoln is a fantastic example of leadership. He was very persistent in his life, and it helped Lincoln lead the country during the hardest time. He was strong in his ideas and believed they are good for the nation. James Madison gave up his military career for the sake of a political one due to his weak health. Madison was present at the relentless persecution of Baptist preachers that had been arrested as they preached without authorization that Anglican Church was in charge of. The issues that he witnessed, provided a basis for his understanding of religious freedom. His desire to see a strong central government and just legislative system came out in his work as author of the Constitution. Also, Madison’s leadership led to the creation of the Republican Party that we see today. John Adams developed a sense of patriotism early in his life. He was always persistent in his own views and never lost this ability. I learned that Adams was a charismatic person and this ability helped him to lead the nation despite his pride and authoritarianism. He wished independence to all people of his country. I believe that he sincerely loved the country. Before they became very active in political fields, Adams, Madison and Lincoln obtained a good education. They practiced a wide range of occupations and pursued more than one career concurrently. Adams worked as a teacher before he became a lawyer. Lincoln worked at the store while studying law. In fact, his motivations to become a lawyer were so strong that he walked to law school twenty miles back and forth, as there were no books in the town of his residence. So, they were lawyers or had benefited from legal training. As lawyers, all three became very successful. Their extensive knowledge of the American political system, being very honest and persistent prepared them for the political field. Lincoln was popular for his agile mind and strong humor. During the Black Hawk war, he was elected captain by the men. Once, Lincoln became involved in local politics as a supporter of the Whig Party. Adams began his political career when he became the leader of the Massachusetts Whigs. James Madison gave his life to politics. He was considered a legislative workhorse.
Adams, Madison and Lincoln took different steps in their political career but they were enthusiastic about their work. They had open minds and were willing to question traditional values and the new ways of doing things. They were passionate and dedicated to the ideas, and we’re not afraid of rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty. It seems that they were functioning in an orderly manner in situations of uncertainty. It is very important for a leader that people were confident in his/her leadership abilities. Indeed, all presidents are human and they have their personal opinions on different things, emotions and feelings. However, a leader should keep a cool head during crises. Lincoln, for example, was very firm and clear in his stand. Adams was known to be an impulsive, intense, and often vehement person. James Madison was reserved and shy. Even so, they tried to commit to excellence in their work. If they did not try, they would be never leading their careers to the president’s office.
Campaigns and Elections
Winning the American presidential elections is not an easy task. It requires good planning and service of the right strategies. Some factors which affect how presidential candidates conduct their activities include previous experience in campaigning for lower offices before seeking for the presidency and the style of office occupancy. By the style of office occupancy, I mean whether the candidate expected the office by the virtue of being the vice president at the time of the president’s death, or whether the candidate was involved in active politics to win the presidential seat.
Abraham Lincoln ruled the American nation for two terms; I mean that he participated in two elections and campaigns. During the presidential election of 1860, the subject of slavery had strongly hit the country. Following Abraham Lincoln’s loss in the competition for the United States Senate, he used the following sixteen months talking and wondering in the entire Northern part of the country directing campaign speeches for various Republican candidates. His method avoided the wordy expressions of the opponents in support of clear and plain logic. Lincoln was triumphant in laying the foundation for his candidature. By the spring of 1860, several politicians were grateful to Lincoln for his support. Most significantly, Lincoln had set up a solid group of campaign managers and supporters, who joined the Republican convention, ready to deal, plot, and arrange votes for Lincoln. His front runner-position proved to be his greatest obstacle because it exposed him to political criticism even earlier than the conference delegates had assembled. When the campaigns were at their peak levels, Lincoln in the keeping of his campaign traditions remained at home to receive visitors who came to give their respect. The impact of the 1860 election is Lincoln, who missed on the ballot in all Southern states, took all of the North in popular vote except in a single state. During the final Electoral College score, Lincoln defeated his main competitor Breckinridge, by 102 votes.
The astounding truth about the election of 1864 is that it happened at the center of a distressing Civil War. However, the United States carried out its presidential election without considering any options. In spite of rumors about rescheduled elections, the election dates were not delayed, though Lincoln felt that he would be beaten. The second notable truth regarding this election is that Lincoln emerged the first with vast Electoral College triumph and a significant popular vote of 55%. Lincoln thought he would lose due to the increasing discontent inside his own party by radical Republicans, who disbelieved Lincoln’s dedication to ensuring political party for the once enslaved when the war had finished.
In a real sense, Lincoln’s probability of winning the election was higher than anyone could think. His campaign made logic to numerous voters, as they also believed that slavery was against the main assertion of the Declaration of Independence that all humans are equal.
John Adams took part in the election campaigns of 1796 and 1800. In his first campaign of 1796, Adams did not conduct a vigorous campaign at that time. However, his followers campaigned strongly. During that time, Adams’s opponents depicted him as an anglophile and a monarchist. Eventually, Adams came first by a three-vote scope.
In 1800, Adams experienced a hard re-election campaign. The Federalist Party became intensely divided over his foreign policy and his position in rejecting war with France in particular, as well as over his Alien and Sedition Acts. (If to compare it with the 1864 election when Lincoln had failed first effort to get the Republican nomination and was at high risk not to be nominated again because of his position as to Wade-Davis Reconstruction bill. The conclusion can be made that Lincoln was able to succeed in being elected for the second term despite opposition in his party only due to his state-level political support being well-organized and the military situation improved in September 1864). In 1799, several people disregarded Adam’s decision to propel diplomats to Paris. In addition, Adams discharged two affiliates of his cabinet for their decline to back up his party, the disparities amid the Republicans and Federalists turn out to be harmful. Adams was defeated by the Republicans because of was better organized. James Madison ruled the American nation for two terms. He participated in the campaigns and elections of 1808 and 1812. In the four years duration, Madison’s popularity swung among extreme lows and unlikely highs, influenced by the state of relations with Britain. Britain’s continued violation of America’s impartial rights at the sea. Despite his many endeavors, none of them seemed to please his opponents. Fifteen days before his war memorandum to Congress, Madison’s nomination for another term happened. His reelection was dramatic. James Madison acquired the support of congressional Democratic-Republicans in their election convention. However, about one-third of Republican parliamentarians boycotted the convention in sum, swearing not to contribute to the re-nomination of the president. Anyway, Madison won the southern states, as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Vermont. Also, the War of 1812 amounted to a second war of independence for the new republic, which quickly helped Madison’s popularity. Comparing Adams with Lincoln and Madison, a conclusion can be made that the reason for his failure to be reelected is in his policy as to war with France which contradicted greatly with the vision of his party comrades and his inability to find the compromise whereas Lincoln and Madison succeeded to do so and not only within the party but within the society also.
All the three presidents contended for the presidential seats for more than one time, but only Lincoln and Madison succeeded while Adams suffered defeat during his second time. All three presidents also had experiences in campaigning for lower offices before they competed for the presidential seats: Adams was VP during Washington’s presidency, under Thomas Jefferson Madison served as secretary of state establishing foreign policy, Lincoln was placed in nomination for vice president but failed to win. Although the campaign strategies employed by the presidents were not identical, each president had supporters and managers of the campaigns. Finally, all the three presidents received their main support from the North of the country.
The campaign strategies of Lincoln, however, were different from Adams and Madison’s. For instance, he was staying at his house to receive delegations whereas his opponents were busy campaigning during his second term. Lincoln, also, campaigned for the Republican contenders in the North. In addition, while Lincoln and Madison won their second term, Adams lost in his second term elections. Furthermore, while other elections happened during peaceful times, Lincoln’s election of 1864 happened at the center of a distressing Civil War and this enlarged his winning chances as the voters saw him as a successful leader able to end up with this sad event in the country’s history. Taking into consideration the fact that Lincoln had severe opposition within his own party before the 1864 election campaign and even failed the first effort to be nominated, I think that his actions during the Civil War became the major reason for his victory. Consequently, while Lincoln and Madison were the U.S. congressmen prior to their presidential campaigns, John Adams was a vice-president.
Reputation is very important in campaigns. A leader needs to appear confident as a person, keep a cool head and think analytically. All the presidents during history were criticized and blamed for the difficulties. For instance, James Madison was often criticized for difficulties stemming from the war, but despite the challenges he encountered during his presidency, Madison was respected as a great thinker, communicator and statesman.
Domestic Affairs
When presidents accept offices, they face numerous domestic issues. Some of these issues could have been prevalent even during their campaigns, while others emerge during their rule. For the prevalent issues, the leader would have placed down policies on how to challenge them, in form of proposals or programs, or guidelines, in most of the cases during the campaigns. Later, the leader needs to follow his policies so as to gain his voter’s trust. For the emerging issues, the leader has to arrange new policies in order to handle them.
All three presidents dealt with issues related to economics, slavery, domestic wars, regionalism, and sectionalism. While his presidency, Lincoln faced two major domestic issues: preserving the Union in the Civil War and the problem of slavery. Taking into consideration all the hardships the Civil War brought, it is clear that navigating the Civil War was the greatest problem an American President ever had. Lincoln played a dramatic role in American people’s lives, no matter what it cost him, he eventually maintained the state’s integrity and established a proper course in overthrowing slavery. There can be no questions about Lincoln’s hatred to enthrallment, that he believed that it opposed the Declaration of Independence and that it threatened the State Union, he opposed to people bondage as a moral evil which cannot be tolerated. John Adams antislavery position was also very distinguished, similar to Lincoln, he found nothing appealing in human bondage; but at his time, he could do almost nothing about this burning problem – if he had openly opposed slavery Adams would have never been elected president, more than this, Adams had an understanding that at his time uniting the colonies was more important than solving slavery problems. As to Madison’s position, he, as the two mentioned presidents, had a great desire to overthrow slavery and put a lot of effort into his time but achieved no big success. Madison put a lot into keeping a direct reference to the word “slave” out of the Constitution, but he failed to do so as it would have derailed the project of creating a new Constitution. A conclusion can be made that in solving one of the most difficult issues in American and World history which is slavery all three presidents put in a lot of work, but Lincoln’s achievement is outstanding.
For James Madison, the fight over the re-releasing of the Bank of the United States was one of the most important domestic concerns. This quest met rigid opposition from three sources: founding Republicans who regarded the bank as illegal and a stranglehold of Hamiltonian influence; anti-British Republicans who disagreed on the considerable holdings of bank hoard by Britons; and nation’s banking interest groups against the U.S. bank’s supremacy to manage the state’s financial trade (Boller 57). After the anti-Bank powers murdered the re-charter drive, the U.S. faced the British devoid of the means to back war loans or to effortlessly attain government acclaim. With Madison’s backing, another bank was leased with a twenty-year phase in 1816. Madison’s opponents claimed that his backing for the bank deal exposed his pro-Federalist empathy. The significance of this Madison’s achievement is hard to overestimate as it let the country feel independence in the world financial market. Lincoln was also aware of the importance of renovating the banking system and did so while his presidency. A conclusion can be made concerning the key role of good financial management of the country by presidents.
There existed several negative reactions toward the French while Adams presidency. Recognizing this mood in the public and identifying a chance to compress the pro-French Democratic-Republican Party, the Federalist congress drew and approved the Alien and Sedition Acts (Smith 57). President Adams approved the bill into law. The Alien Enemies Act authorized the President to extradite foreigners whom he considered risky to the state’s safety. Madison and Jefferson asserted that because the constitution was formed by a compact amid the nations, the natives, talking through their state parliaments, had the power to arbitrate the authenticity of federal procedures. For this reason, they regarded the Sedition and Alien Acts as invalid and unsound. Seen in this light, Adams has been justifiably censured for approving the acts (it is important to mention that he himself did not implement them) and faced with populists’ defiance. Noteworthy in his conduct is the fact that Hamilton called Adams for a strong show of federal force to the rebels, but he pardoned them exercising outstanding tolerance. Adams’ position in trying to maintain peace and balance is of great importance during his presidency. Lincoln (for example, in the case with Wade-Davis Reconstruction bill) and Madison (for example, while working on new Constitution) also showed their great tolerance and compromise-finding ability.
Analyzing the three men presidency, it is important to mention that the way the president handles domestic affairs greatly affects winning the electorate support. In the case of Abraham Lincoln, his outstanding ability to balance within the interests of the majority in solving the most difficult issues as slavery, for example, helped him to have great success and good remembrance through centuries; while John Adams uncertain and unclear position as with the Alien and Sedition Acts robbed him out of influence within his own party and the society in general and thus became the reason of his failure to be the president for the second term.
Foreign Affairs
During the presidency of the three men, numerous wars were led and their success among the electorate was due to their wise foreign politics. Lincoln’s decisions in the Independence war were of great importance for his victory during elections. A major element of Abraham Lincoln’s martial plan rested on an efficient barricade of the South’s main ports and almost two hundred bays and traversable rivers. This was a virtually impractical task for a state with only a few naval ships. The concern of the barricade’s efficiency became the key foreign policy query in the initial years of the fighting. The union confidently anticipated England to lead ally cotton vessels or to propel British trade and battleships to southern harbors to pick up crucially required cotton. To speed up this active intercession, the confederacy unceremoniously cut off the main cotton exports. Astoundingly, England took no bureaucratic action to break the barricade and even bore the attack off by the British ships dealing with the union. England did not extend diplomatic appreciation to the union legitimately.
Madison’s clever strategy during the second war of sovereignty also brought him success. Congress agreed to military provisions followed by a ninety-day impediment. When Madison appeared in the congress with his record of complaints in opposition to the British, which incorporated the persistent impressments of sailors, the business boundaries formed by the British council, and the support of Indians who assaulted American immigrants with armaments, the house recommended a war in June (Boller 98). The Senate, nevertheless, argued for a long time and did not authorize a war pending two weeks after Congress had approved the war. Despite everything, congress announced a war on Britain the subsequent day. In light of Madison, the announcement meant the second war of sovereignty. It also offered a chance to thrust the Indian rebellion in the Northwest, grab Canada, coerce the Spanish to evacuate west Florida, and safeguard maritime sovereignty. The U.S. moved swiftly to escalate an offensive in opposition to Canada. The arrangement was aimed at dividing Ontario, therefore ending pro-British people from British backing. Unluckily, the move resulted in tragedy for the American armed forces.
As to the presidency of John Adams, it was filled with issues that were instigated by the French revolution. Cries for war with Britain were widespread. This led to a foreign crisis that continued for the duration of Adams’s office. At first, Adams tried diplomacy; he assigned three commissioners to Paris for negotiation, but Talleyrand humiliated the diplomats by initial refusal to receive them. Talleyrand started talks for peace, however, he had put in a claim for a $250,000 bribe and a $10 million credit for his country. This case, named “the XYZ affair”, met hot response in the country. Adams reacted by requesting Congress to correct funds for protective measures. These entailed the expansion of the Navy; enhancement of defensives at the coast and the formation of the interim army; and power for the President to convene more military men to dynamic duty (Smith 110). Congress formed the navy division, approved the Sedition and Alien Acts to control the rebellion, structured the Marine Corps, and called off the pacts of alliance and trade with France, which had been agreed upon in the war of sovereignty. John Adams’ biggest achievement was avoiding war with France. Between the years 1798 and 1799, Adams received confirmation that the French were ready to negotiate. When Talleyrand confirmed France’s readiness for negotiation, Adams sent another diplomatic mission to France. After a few weeks, Napoleon signed the Treaty of Mortefontaine which brought the Quasi-War to an end. Adams considered this peace arrangement his greatest achievement during his office.
Taking all the aforesaid into consideration, it can be said that Lincoln’s and Madison’s successful foreign affair policies led to their success among the electorate and party mates, while Adam’s success was ambivalent, and thus robbed him of influence within his party and of electorate support. On the one hand, most historians agree that Adams’ position was wise in not starting an exhausting war with France as the state was yet very young and not strong enough for such conflicts, on the other hand, his position as to the Alien and Sedation Acts in connection with the war was unwise, and he failed to win the second elections and thus, did not get a chance to leave a different trace in history.
Conclusion
After all, things were concluded, it is necessary, to sum up, that the president’s performance is often a measure by which people judge the performance of the country. A president should be able to make his people feel that the nation can succeed. In addition, it is also important that people understood the role of the president’s performance in world history.
I consider Lincoln to be a good president as he succeeded to attain unattainable, he was able to save the state unity and conquer the terrible slavery problem despite numerous hardships he had. Adams, to my mind, is a mediocre president as his office was somehow out of his people – he did what he seemed to be right and did not spend much time and effort to find a compromise in the society. If to evaluate Madison’s presidency, I would say that he is also a good president and he achieved a lot for the country’s well-being even though many historians say he was much more successful as the constitution writer and legislator but rather a weak person to lead the nation as a president. He established, once and for all, respect for American rights on the high seas and emerged from the war with more support than he had when he was first inaugurated. I consider it to be a great success. Madison was possibly the most successful and the most influential of all the Founding Fathers of the young nation, as he solved many important issues (the National Bank issue, the issue of handling the war, etc).
Taking into consideration all mentioned above, I believe that great men make the times, but sometimes circumstances of the times make men great. For me, it is evident in Lincoln’s case – he was a great man who made himself great due to his unbelievable diligence and hard work, he went on a long journey and was able to attain unattainable. His greatness of character and the personal qualities he developed through his long and very challenging way helped him to get such great results. I have also understood that a particular person presidency and his success depend on his supporters and popularity in Congress, as it is evident with John Adams, for example, had he had more support in Congress, he would have been able to stay for the second term and leave a better trace in American people history.
Works Cited
Boller, Paul. Presidential Diversion: American Presidents at Play. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Books, 2007. Print.
If you were President Ford would you have impeached or pardoned Nixon?
From Watergate’s incident, President Nixon deserved impeachment having attempted to cover-up the 1972’s political break-in at the DNC’s headquarter. In personal opinion, President Ford could have not pardoned Nixon following his unlawful deeds. As the then president of the US mandated to embraced justice, democracy, and integrity, Nixon deserved a thorough conviction having failed to satisfy these virtues. It was clear (as investigated by FBI) that Nixon and his administration were the principal schemers of the criminal incidences witnessed at the NDC headquarter indicated earlier (Bottom 1). This is a critical provision when considered critically.
Additionally, his attempts to cover-up the incident based on his authority as the then-sitting president were unlawful and impractical. For that matter, it is crucial to argue that President Nixon could have been impeached due to his illegal deeds and the misuse of the presidential office. Elections should be free and fair; nonetheless, the scheme (steered by Nixon’s administration) violated such principles. This indicates why such incidences should be charged before the court of law to establish, ratify, and embrace justice within the country.
Whether what he did was serious
It is crucial to agree that what President Richard Nixon did was serious when regarded in the democratic, political, and legal realms. The fact that the incident was political indicated how he wanted to rig his reelection to the white house for another term. This was politically incongruent with what was expected of a topmost leader. Additionally, the tape records grasped in his office indicated clearly how he was involved in the act (ICSI 1).
It is vital to claim that Nixon’s administration did not embrace democracy as demonstrated on various occasions. The fact that he attempted to cover-up the incident was a serious occurrence in his administration. He could have allowed for flawless investigations to occur on the matter rather than taking sides. Additionally, the fact that he indulged in illegal raids and attempted to cover-up the entire incident was serious in various contexts.
Would you have resigned if you were Nixon?
Due to the nature of the incidence, relevant investigations executed by FBI, and subsequent court orders, I could have also resigned if I were President Nixon. This was to reduce the anxiety and mistrust that Americans had started bestowing on Nixon’s administration. The pressure concerning the matter was uncontainable and the situation could have worsened in case Nixon failed to resign (NationalGeographic 1). This move was necessary to restore normalcy within the country. Additionally, it could have been hard to win the election due to the negative impacts fronted by the incident. Similarly, the fact that some of Nixon’s administrators had been vindicated worsened the situation. This shows why it was vital to resign from the docket of the presidency to allow for just and reasonable investigations to occur on the matter.
What do you think of President Nixon?
President Nixon wanted to manipulate his way back to the statehouse by disabling democrats in the political realms. This indicates the aspects of secrecy, selfishness, injustice, prejudice, and inequality embraced by Nixon in his previous presidential bids. Conversely, Nixon cooperated with the law, political dynamics, and loved the nation (US) more than his interests. This is evident by his presidential resignation and being the first American president to do so.
The establishment of the office of the president by the United State’s Constitution towards the end of the 1780s marked a significant milestone in the country’s history. According to Clause 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as…” (Amar 49).
The Constitution advocated the election of a powerful and responsible person and people outside the legislature would elect the president. This move created an opportunity for the president to work without interference from the Congress. This paper seeks to address how the office of the president has grown with time in connection with the recognition of the executive powers. Currently, a president is held accountable for his/her actions and s/he works with different arms of the government to ensure balanced governance. It is important to consider this topic as it addresses the majority of controversies surrounding the office of the president. In most controversies, people criticize the president for implementing decisions beyond his/her presidential powers. However, this topic will highlight the significant milestones that this office has achieved since its formation in a bid to achieve a balanced government. With reference to the theory of federalism, this paper will be based on Alexander Hamilton’s article, The Federalist No. 70.
Articulation of the article in relation to the growth of presidency and executive powers
Hamilton’s article, Federalist Paper No. 70, assumes a counter-intuitive approach to defending the implementation of executive powers and safeguarding the safety of the republicans. The separation of executive powers between the two houses, viz. the House of Representative and the Senate is of equal importance due to the debate on domestic violence among other issues that affect the society. In most cases, the people’s perception toward a democratic government entails pushing its officials to fulfil the majorities’ will. However, Publius, in Hamilton’s article, associates democracy with the good execution of people’s will by the government officers (Hamilton par. 1).
From the article, it is evident that Hamilton advocated the establishment of an executive branch to strengthen unity among states. According to Allen and Cloonan, the theory of federalism advocates governance by a group of people bound by a covenant, but headed by a representative (85). Hamilton’s suggestion to have an executive branch was in line with federalism, as the executive would ensure a democratic government characterized by fair distribution of power between the states and federal government (Allen and Cloonan 337).
With reference to Hamilton’s article, the establishment of unified executive branches strengthens the presidency further and maintains accountability in the government at the same time. Through a flexible structure, the president can issue directives deemed to violate his/her constitutional mandates, especially in the times of crises. In the contemporary times, the world is under a security crisis with separatists groups emerging to advance their interests and beliefs. Unfortunately, some of these believes are a threat to the peaceful existence of humanity. For instance, the latest group to emerge is the ISIS and it is wrecking havoc in Iraq.
Therefore, in such times when disaster can strike at anytime, the president needs to exercise executive powers to contain some situations. With reference to accountability, Hamilton cites the executive branch as a promoter of accountability within the structures of power (par.4). Initially, the Constitution recommended the establishment of the office of the president, but the holder would be elected by people outside the legislature to enhance the independence of the office. The lack of a structure that could question policies or actions implemented in the president’s office undermined accountability. Furthermore, accountability adds to the equal representation in the government in addition to promoting effective governance (Nelson 48). Moreover, the US had two Houses, and thus unitary executive branch was crucial in a bid to avoid the implementation of multiple executive structures that contributed to the country’s decline. Hamilton supports this argument by quoting the decline of Rome following the disunity amongst council members (par.7).
In most cases, people fail to differentiate tyranny from democratic governance as advocated by federalism. People perceive democracy as forcing the government to fulfill the citizens’ will, but Hamilton cites it as the government’s free will to fulfill people’s will (par.1). Ironically, democracy gives people the freedom to do many things without the interference of the government. Unfortunately, some individuals use this opportunity to abuse their freedom and advance selfish agenda. Therefore, the government has to implement check and balances to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone.
However, people hold on to this notion because they do not want to embrace the fact that democracy comes at a price especially in achieving and maintaining governmental balance. Nevertheless, by enhancing unity, adequate support, and competent powers, democratic governance empowers the president to execute the law without legislative interference on his/her constitutional mandate. Such a claim is supported by the unitary executive theory that the president has competent unilateral authority and executive powers to implement the Constitution (Calabresi and Yoo 275).
In the article, Hamilton recommends a need for strong and unified executive branch, and this perspective has been used over time to justify the expansion of the executive and presidential powers. However, the expansion that happens beyond constitutional boundaries must be executed at times of crises such as civil wars and other events that affect the country’s security. For example, during the American Revolution, it was the responsibility of the parliament to determine what the government had to do in the course of the war.
However, Abraham Lincoln, in his capacity as the president, acted in the absence of congressional approval and suspended the Habeas Corpus. President Lincoln acted in what he thought was the best interest of the country at such a time of conflict. Suspending Habeas Corpus was critical at the time because with the destruction of railroad tracks, the capacity of the army to confront the south would be compromised. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the suspension was unconstitutional and the naval blockade crippled the economy of the states in the south. However, Lincoln acted against the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in a bid to safeguard the security interests of the states in the Northern region of America (Harris and Tichenor 117).
In the recent times, the justifications for executive power as outlined in the Federalist No. 70 influenced President Bush’s foreign policy in the course of his administration. With reference to Hamilton’s argument, energetic and unitary executive plays a crucial role in enhancing national security. For example, following the 9/11 attack, the executive was more involved than other government arms in restoring national security. The formation of a post 9/11 committee to deal with matters of national security was an indication of the president’s authority to implement executive powers independently. Furthermore, the committee recommended the need for the execution of the country’s foreign policy without the involvement of the Congress. The committee’s recommendation revolves around Hamilton’s argument concerning accountability through a unitary executive branch (Calabresi and Yoo 274).
Moreover, the “Constitution bestows upon the president the power and authority to enhance the country’s national security” (Allen and Cloonan 340). With such a constitutional mandate, it is an indication that the accountability of national security rests with the president. According to Hamilton, the centralization of presidential authority is crucial at the time of crisis to ensure effective accountability (par.5). National security cannot be maintained effectively in the absence of proper mobilization of resources and strong foreign policy in addition to other aspects of national defense. With reference to this argument and Hamilton’s views in Federalist No. 70, it was right for President Bush to implement strategies against terrorism, despite the lack of congressional consent.
Furthermore, Bush’s move can be attributed to the fact that the President has adequate access to the country’s security details. Therefore, only the president has a clear perception of the country’s security details and status. In another instance, President Bush invoked Federalist No. 70 when he assented to the legislation on treatment of detainees in 2005. In 2011, President Obama followed suit and expanded his executive powers without congressional consent. The changes aimed at “annulling the provisions that limited the President from dealing with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners” (Nelson 93).
With reference to the unitary executive theory as applied by Hamilton, the president has a primary duty to head the executive branch. As the head of the executive, the President is charged with maintaining unity in the executive branch. For example, in the case on the Brandy Act, the Supreme Court cited the need for accountability and unity in the country’s executive in declining the plea to delegate gun control from the President (Harris and Tichenor 275).
Studying the significance of the executive branch in connection with the office of the president highlights significant developments in the presidency since the formation of this office through the Constitution in the 1780s. Initially, although the Constitution promoted independence of the office of the president, the president could not act or implement policies outside his/her prerogative powers. Regarding these developments in presidency, the country will experience strict foreign policy as different Presidents aim at ending terrorism in the future.
Conclusion
The office of the president has experienced significant growth milestones since its inception through the Constitution. Initially, the Constitution advocated independence of the office, hence barring accountability within the office. However, with Hamilton’s argument regarding the establishment of a unitary executive branch, the president can invoke Federalist No. 70 and expand his/her mandate beyond constitutional provisions. For example, President Lincoln invoked Federalist No. 70 to safeguard the security of the northern states by placing a naval blockade without congressional consent. Furthermore, President Obama invoked Federalist No. 70 to expand his executive powers in dealing with detainees.
Works Cited
Allen, William, and Kevin Cloonan. The Federalist Papers: A Commentary: the Baton Rouge Lectures, New York: Lang, 2000. Print.
Amar, Akhil. America’s Constitution: A Biography, New York: Random House, 2006. Print.
Calabresi, Steven, and Christopher Yoo. “Toward a representational theory of the executive: The unitary executive.” Boston University Law Review 91.273 (2008): 273-303. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander. The executive department further considered: The Federalist No. 70 1788. Web.
Harris, Richard, and Daniel Tichenor. A History of the U.S Political System: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Print.
Nelson, Michael. The Presidency and the Political system, Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2014. Print.