Category: President

Introduction

With the current Trump administration, the office of the President of the United States has faced unprecedented challenges and criticisms. One of the most prominent commentaries held in media and public debate is the lack of preparation and competency that Donald Trump has to become a successful president. It poses an important question as to what defines an effective president considering that the position requires no professional qualifications, an answer found in history based on the 44 individuals which have graced the highest office both in dignity and disgrace. A successful president is defined by highly moral character, focus on policy which benefits the public, and the ability to face crises; aspects which define their legacy and long-term impact on history.

Personal Characteristics

The personal character of a U.S. President has tremendous importance in all aspects of the presidency and its position as an example in leadership and governance. While presidential ethics is an aspect of public politics, there is also a matter of representing values which are an indicator of the American democracy and Western freedoms. A president is expected to uphold a certain level of standards which honors the office. In order to govern efficiently and promote policy for the betterment of the country and its residents, a president must not only follow a specific political ideological agenda but rather display empathy, open-mindedness, integrity, and a number of qualities which would justify providing this individual with significant power and influence. Therefore, in a modern presidency, which differs significantly from the Constitutional times, accountability is key with more functional responsibility and the ability of the presidential power. As the federal government has expanded with new functions and legislative control, the presidential executive power, both explicit and implicit has increased as well.¹ Thus, there is a higher level of responsibility, intellect, and understanding of governance required by a modern leader.

Moral leadership is a critical aspect of a successful presidency. The most iconic presidential figures the like of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and others demonstrated significant virtue and moral character, particularly in times of crisis which went on to define the nation. That is the primary necessity of an ethical character because every president faces new and unanticipated crises during their time in office, ones that require strong decision-making consistent with the laws and values of the country. During a situation in progress, there may be a moral grey area which a president must be able to navigate without compromise. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact moral values required, nor are they going to be perfect in all situations. However, an effective president demonstrates a sense of personal virtue in a manner that does not compromise the moral status of the people and the office.² In comparison, a demagogue is someone who demonstrates questionable morality and vice. The president must not abuse his power for personal gain, while a demagogue will seek to manipulate to the highest extent possible. While a president unites the people as a moral leader, a demagogue plays on their fears and seeks to divide to achieve greater control.

Policy-Building

Although it is ultimately the role of Congress to pass legislation and enact policy, the concept of policy-building has consistently been an indicator of presidential success, particularly in regard to social and economic policies. Presidential-Congressional relations are one of the key components in successful policy-building as a president must find the support and votes to propose their agenda to lawmakers and interact among party members. Constitutionally, the president is the chief policymaker with a variety of mechanisms to influence and collaborate with Congress. Policy has historically defined a presidency, based on the immediate and long-term impacts which it has made. A successful president is commonly defined as someone who was able to guide through a large and widely supported legislature based on the agenda while being to manage legislative and political gridlock.³

However, not everyone would agree with this perspective, particularly proponents of a weak executive branch. For example, Sollenberger and Rozell suggest that presidents and their administrations often go beyond their constitutionally provided powers, become “presidential czars” by either using the executive order, agency leadership, or a friendly Congress to pass their politically motivated agenda and budgets.⁴ For them, a presidential administration should have much more limited roles in policy implementation. While both perspectives may have solid arguments, the Constitution requires presidents to sign or veto legislation. Therefore, it inherently requires a competent understanding of policy creation and implementation, as to be able to make a decision that would have positive impacts on national law. More often, legislation has a limited impact but there are instances where the law is extensive such as Obama’s Affordable Care Act or Trump’s tax reform. Since it was established that presidents are expected to demonstrate moral and political leadership, involvement in policy-building is vital since it has to consider legislative, judicial, economic, and public perception components.

Governance and Political Flexibility

Presidents must not only focus on policy creation but day-to-day governance. This includes delegating staff, communication, diplomacy, funding, and executive decision-making. This direct presidential governance and use of other instruments such as executive orders require significant competency from presidents. The administration in power is often tasked with staffing government agency leadership, courts, and advisors that requires a day to day presence, awareness, and proper exercise of presidential power. It can be argued that the president is similar to a business executive, but the administration under his command is much more complex and there are significant limitations and expectations from the governance aspect of the executive branch. ⁵

Reports from the Trump administration demonstrate the critical aspect of governance for a successful president. Based on accounts, it is suggested that there is strong disorganization in the White House under Trump, largely due to his poor leadership and governance style. This leads to constant breakdowns in the protocol, high turnover of staff, and a myriad of other issues, common in incompetent leadership and demagogues who seek to centralize their power. Meanwhile, successful presidents are known to have run highly efficient administrations with tremendous unity and support, with many of the officials during their time in power also known for contributions in policy or crisis resolution.

The challenging duties of the presidency in aspects such as policy-building and others often require collaboration with a variety of other lawmakers, officials, and even private citizens at every level. The commonly seen down-the-line party-based partisanship on values and policy has always been a strong concern for presidents. Administrations must learn to navigate and cooperate with all involved political parties and individuals. Successful presidencies which are judged on policy, have also been able to find common ground and offer compromises which would establish a national inter-party dialogue.⁶ While politicians are expected to demonstrate resolve at times, those who continuously pushed a hard line and refused to cooperate but rather attempted to divide often were regarded as mediocre or unsuccessful presidents.

Facing Crises and Long-Term Impact

Almost universally scholars and pundits alike agree that the manner in which presidents face crises, particularly ones that have profound historic significances often define their presidency. As a commander in chief, the U.S. President is provided with a wide range of executive powers which play a significant role in crisis situations, this includes declaring a national emergency and authorizing military use. Some crises may be external, such as foreign conflicts and natural disasters, while others are internal, such as a Constitutional crisis due to a president’s actions.

Referring back to a president’s moral leadership and character as well as interactions with his advisors and lawmakers, a successful president is expected to navigate crises with dignity and competency, as to protect national interests, preserve the office’s integrity, and united the nation. Even in the most divisive of times such as the Civil War under Lincoln or a critical nuclear threat of the Cuban Missile Crisis under Kennedy, presidents have demonstrated the ability to remain calm and execute solutions which were sometimes imperfect but were ultimately for the best of the country. Meanwhile, less successful presidents the likes of Trump and Nixon, not only drew the country into Constitutional crises but also chose to navigate it with instances of division and hostility. Every president has faced a crisis, and it required to take decisive actions in sometimes unclear or morally grey situations which present pressure far beyond its portrayals in media. However, competent leaders considered lives and American interests at stake, acting on reason and advice rather than impulse and self-indulgence.⁷ It is these characteristics and coming face-to-face with a crisis which reveals the true identity of a leader as either a successful president or a self-centered demagogue.

Finally, perhaps the most controversial indicator of presidential success is long-term impact and legacy. It is evident that the position of a president is historic and important in itself. However, legacy and long-term impact cannot be evaluated for decades or even centuries afterward. It is expected that presidents use long-term strategy and the benefit of the country in their policy and governance. Nevertheless, legacy cannot always be positive, and there are presidencies which are not defined by significant events which went down in history but remained vital for the time of the presidency and long-term impacts of some concept of foreign or domestic policy.⁸ Therefore, it is important to consider this aspect carefully as an indicator of success, but those presidents who are considered among the greatest earned this through their actions and governance when in office.

Conclusion

The political office of the president is one of the most complex professions and responsibilities a person may hold. The burden of power, governance, and influence should be given to those who demonstrate a set of qualities and skills while representing the will of the people at the given time. A successful president is characterized by high moral standards which allow to engage in beneficial policy building, uniting the country politically, the ability to face crises, and establishing a positive long-term impact on the nation. It is difficult to identify initially whether a person would make a competent president, but there are certain indicators and mindsets that determine the extent of an individual’s capabilities.

Bibliography

Blake, Michael. “Must the President Be a Moral Leader? “The Conversation. Web.

Bohn, Michael K. Presidents in Crisis: Tough Decisions inside the White House from Truman to Obama. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2015.

Edwards, George C., Kenneth R. Mayer, and Stephen J. Wayne. Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. 10th ed. Stamford, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2018.

Jensen, Elizabeth. ” A President’s Legacy, With All Its Complications.”NPR, 6, 2018. Web.

Sollenberger, Mitchel A., and Mark J. Rozell. The President’s Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2012.

Stuckey, Mary E. Political Rhetoric: A Presidential Briefing Book. New York: Routledge, 2015.

Footnotes

1. George C. Edward et al., Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. 10th ed. (Stamford, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2018). 60-61.
2. Michael Blake, “Must the President Be a Moral Leader? ” The Conversation. Web.
3. George C. Edward et al., Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. 10th ed. (Stamford, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2018). 355.
4. Mitchel A.Sollenberger and Mark J. Rozell. The President’s Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2012), 228.
5. George C. Edwards et al., Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. 10th ed. (Stamford, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2018). 260-261.
6. Mary E. Stuckey, Political Rhetoric: A Presidential Briefing Book. (New York: Routledge, 2015), 40.
7. Michael K. Bohn, Presidents in Crisis: Tough Decisions inside the White House from Truman to Obama. (New York: Arcade Publishing, 2015), xvii-xxviii.
8. Elizabeth Jensen, ” A President’s Legacy, With All Its Complications.” NPR, 2018. Web.

The political system of every country differs in some aspects from those of other countries. Some states are monarchies, some are parliamentary republics, other present the presidential republics or mixed, parliamentary-presidential or vice versa presidential-parliamentary republics. All these kinds of the political systems have their distinctive features. For example, monarchy is characterized with the king or queen being the head of the country and having the supreme or constitutionally limited power. Parliamentary republics give the whole amount of the power to the parliament, while presidential ones are those where the president is the highest level of the executive power. In the countries of the mixed type of the republic the powers are divided equally between the branches in order not to let any of them become dominant.

Speaking about the political system of the United States of America we can distinguish one more type of the country’s organization – the federal republic. This means that the powers in the country are divided between the three branches – executive, legislative and judicial, and the President of the United States is considered to be the head of the country. At the same time he/she is the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. The second position after the President in the hierarchy is taken by the Vice President of the United States. This person is appointed by the Presidential candidate who got the majority of the votes and took the Presidential office according to certain interests that he or she pursuits.

There is a joke that the position of the Vice President is the best one for a public person to take if he or she wants to go into obscurity and to be forgotten. These words characterize the significance of the position for the US citizens. Formally, the Vice-President is appointed as a person who will take the presidential office in case of the Presidents death, removal or resignation. But in fact Presidents never pay much attention to this function of their Vice Presidents. The main point that motivates this or that appointment of a Vice President is keeping of the balance between the political powers in the country. This means that the force that won the election needs to make some concessions to the party which failed in order to keep that balance.

The examples of the appointments of such kind can be found throughout the US history. President Roosvellt, known as a liberal politician from New York, selected John Nance Garner, a Texan politician keeping to the conservative ideas. This helped to keep the balance geographical balance, as well as the balance between the liberals and conservatives in the same party. Another example is up-to-date, as George Bush appointed Dick Cheney to compensate his own lack of knowledge in the foreign affairs in which Mr. Cheney was a specialist (O’Connor, 298 – 299). According to other duties of the Vice President, he is the one who fulfills the functions of the President of the US Senate and the head of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). So, as we can see, the position of The Vice President is more important than it is thought about. That is why we have to consider what possible candidates are the best for the assumed presidential candidates at the US Presidential Elections of 2008. We will take Hillary Clinton as an assumed Democrats Party candidate and John McCain as an assumed candidate from the Republican side.

Considering the possible candidates from the Democrats Party I came to the conclusion that Antonio Villaraigosa is the best choice for Hillary Clinton as an assumed President candidate at the elections of 2008. There is one more good option, her husband Bill Clinton, who has already been President and who will be the ideal counterpart to his wife that will let the Americans hope for fruitful work of the White House. But Bill Clinton yields to Villaraigosa in concern of interracial relations and the problem of woman rights which are familiar to Villaraigosa. He deals with them in Los-Angeles and has the support of the Latinos and women. Antonio Villaraigosa, the Mayor of Los-Angeles, is supported by the Latin Americans living in Los-Angeles and is known for his understanding of the problems of national minorities. Recently the importance of the Latino voting has been greatly increasing, so due to his good position among this part of the electorate Villaraigosa reached prominence in the Democratic Party and is considered to be the leading candidate for the position of the Vice President.

The approach to the woman rights question that is displayed by Villaraigosa is also attractive to the electorate and the choice of this Latino politician will increase the chances of Hillary Clinton to win the Presidential election. This candidate went the road from a spokesman in the Los-Angeles City Council to the Mayor of this city is a perfect example of how to be a leader and how to be successful. This makes him a good candidate for the position, besides, there is numerous evidence that namely Villaraigosa is considered to be the most appropriate Vice President by Mrs. Clinton herself. Some specialists claim that the major aim of Villaraigosa is to become the California Governor in 2010 elections and give evidence of this, but I stick to the point of view that Antonio Villaraigosa is the best candidate for this position and I think that Hillary Clinton will make the right choice of the Vice President candidate if she becomes the official Presidential candidate from the Democratic Party.

First of all, Hillary Clinton was seen to meet with Mr. Villaraigosa before her Presidential Campaign started and they had a talk after which Villaraigosa agreed to become one of the leaders of Clinton’s campaign. This can mean that the Presidential Candidate promised him the Vice Presidential office in case of her victory. The successful campaign carried out by Clinton’s supporters also adds to Villaraigosa’s chances for the assumed Vice Presidency. Secondly, Antonio Villaraigosa had a worldwide tour during which he met with the leaders of many countries. This can be also considered as evidence of the coming appointment. The Vice President Antonio Villaraigosa will allow Clinton reach several aims that will make her possible presidency much easier. He is able to compromise the sides of the US society that are in a kind of a conflict – the Government and the constantly growing Latino population of the USA which has more and more influence on the state policies. The international ties of Mr. Villaraigosa also play a very important role in the choice of Hilary Clinton as the Vice President who is already known abroad is an advantage to the positions of the Democratic Party in the coming elections (Bruck, 2008).

Considering the possible best candidate for the Vice Presidency from the Republican Party is more difficult than Democratic Party because among Republicans there is no unity as for who is the best choice for Vice President office if John McCain becomes President. There are several criteria according to which the candidate from the Republicans will be chosen, and I offer to examine these criteria and make our choice. The problem of the Republican Party is the age of their Presidential candidate. John McCain is already 72 years old, so, in case of his victory in the elections, he will need a younger Vice President who will be able to moderate the conservative policies of the Republicans and win the votes of the younger part of the US population. The candidate should also be a popular person, and have influence in the Republican Party and on the electorate. The most appropriate candidates that will conform to all the above mentioned requirements can be found among the Governors.

Considering all the possible candidates I came to the conclusion that Tim Pawlenty, the Governor of the state of Minnesota fits most of all others to be the Vice President from the Republican Party. There are several factors that prove my point of view and I will speculate upon them below. The first point is that the Governor Tim Pawlenty isn much younger than John McCain is – Mr. Pawlenty is only 48 compared to 72 years of McCain, and this means that he can bring new trends to the conservative Republican policies and by this win the votes of a certain part of the population. Besides, Republicans are concerned with the age of their nominee because in case of emergency he will be able to take the Presidential office if the President will not be able to fulfill his duties (Dahle, 2008). Another point that serves to the advantage of Tim Pawlenty is his moderate conservativeness.

It will let the Republicans, firstly, not to lose the voters who were a bit disappointed with not conservative enough policy of John McCain, and, secondly, gain new voters who demand the less conservative policy. For example, in the question of the immigration, Tim Pawlenty keeps to a rather conservative position, in contrast to John McCain. Pawlenty promises to solve the problem of immigration as he is absolutely against this process. Although this point can cause certain conflicts with the national minorities, Republicans believe that in general such approach will improve the balance between their conservative and liberal voters. Also, the figure of Tim Pawlenty as an assumed Vice President will assure people that he can influence John McCain in some questions, for example in the issues like the above mentioned immigration.

The fact that usually Minnesota is a Democrat state also becomes important in the case with Pawlenty, because his being a Vice President nominee can make the state he governs swing, i. e. change their preferences and this time vote for the Republican Party. Thus much more votes will be won by the Republicans and it will make the task of the Democratic Party to return to the White House more difficult. Certainly, there are some other factors that make Tim Pawlenty the best candidate for this position. The today’s situation in the USA is such that all possible nominees for the President’s office are senators and this mean that they do not have executive experience. Mr. Pawlenty has rich experience of the executive work as he worked long as the state Governor of Minnesota. He is closely acquainted with the political and judicial system of the United States of America and this is one more advantage of his figure. Finally, Tim Pawlenty started supporting the candidature of John McCain from the very beginning of the election campaign and always displayed his support in public. John McCain is glad to have such a supporter: “This is the kind of leadership that I’d like to pass the torch to.” (Dahle, 1) Tim Pawlenty does not hide his position and calls McCain “a great leader” when asked about the reasons of this support (Dahle, 1).

So, all the above analyzed information draws this essay to the following conclusion. The position of the Vice President is rather important one in the political system of the United States of America. Although this importance is not evident in the field of law-making or executive branch of the power, the significance of choosing the right Vice President nominee for any of the candidates for Presidency can not be underestimated. This can be explained by the fact that the figure of this or that Vice President candidate can change sufficiently the election results because voters who do not support the candidate can support his Vice President. So, in this essay I have tried to choose the most suitable persons for the office of Vice President from both Democratic and Republican Parties, Antonio Villaraigosa and Tim Pawlenty respectively, and gave the reasons why I think so.

Works Cited

Bruck, Connie. The New Yorker: Fault Lines, 2008.

Dahl, Travis. The People’s Media Company: Tim Pawlenty as Vice President Why He Should Be the VP Candidate for John McCain, 2008. Web.

O’Connor, Karen & Sabato, Larry J.,et al. American Government:Continuity and Change. Texas Edition(4th ed). New York:Pearson Longman, 2008.

Introduction

President Bush and Congress are currently being faced with several issues that are arising from the position of the new democrats. This is giving the overall incumbent in the presidential seat great heat on how to manage the houses. As it is currently the political grounds are eminently changing as the global world changes. In the past decades, most voters were focused on economic progression. This was used as the means of campaigns by the politicians.

Today, economic policy factors are not applicable and political leaders are now changing the political arena by looking at the current focus of people’s future. Congress is tremendously being faced with enormous challenges in recent years concerning the center of cultural factors in life. This is causing a change in terms of approaching values of life. (Kakutani, 2007)

Main body

The major issue that are being raised and are of contentious social issues includes:-

Raising the minimum wages of the employee. This issue shows that a great percentage of people in the U.S earn less than expected. This is because politicians do preach the economic politic forgetting the prosperity of the pauper’s countrymen. People are now looking to have general income increments from the stagnant wages so that at least they can improve their social and cultural life. others issues that are arising are advocacy to protect social security, support of embryonic stem cell research, advocating for changing the course in Iraq, pro-life-religion and value of life, health-prescription drugs/health insurance.

The major program that President Bush is seeking to do in order to advance is to comply with some of the proposed positions of the above factors. He intends to be pro-life and calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In addition, he would face the challenge of health by committing himself to continue supporting the HIV/AIDS programs that will lead to end the plague. In terms of security, Bush alleges that the reconstruction efforts will be intensified in order to make Iraq a democratic country/state. The president supports the renewing and then strengthening of the patriotic act that leads to the creation of a national counter- center. He is pushing for the way forward towards the suggested recommendations in the act.

The president is the most senior, powerful, and influential person in the U. S. government has less effect on the law-making process. The mandate of the president allows him to make bills of the congress to be valid when he approves them. In his capacity, he recommends the written legislation by congress before the introduction of the bill for consideration. The president vetoes the bills hence it does not go into effect. The third option that the president does is to decide to do nothing with the bill and the successes of such bills are determined by the number of sessions the Congress has in the business. Generally, the success of the president relies on the congress that is not controlled by the president’s political party but is mostly under the people’s voices from the different senators and representatives.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of President Bush will not be too much credit for the last six years. this follows the fact that considering the project of war that began in Iraq, most Americans have filled terror of attacks and that his decision seemed to be in an away from a dictate rather than consultative. It is also vivid that the economic stand in America in the past few years is deteriorating hence people are seeming to change to the stereotype of life being experienced in the third country. This will automatically result in crucial criticisms from the entire world due to misuse of state property which will send his light-dark never to be recognized by many.

Reference:

President Bush: Overall Job Rating: PollingReport.com. 2008. Web.

Kakutani, M. (2007): Unchecked and Unbalanced: The New York Times.

Bush gets bad rap on intelligence. St. Cloud Times Online. Web.

Introduction

President Andrew Johnson had succeeded in the seat of American presidency in 1865, after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He also assumed the role of Commander-in –Chief of armed forces of the USA and haughtily considered himself final authority over post-war reconstruction.

War of attrition with Congress over power sharing

His approach was not relished by Senate and legislative action, and he could be said to have fought a constant abrasive war of words with Congress legislators regarding who exerted greater authority over reconstruction- whether it was the Commander –in-Chief of the armed forces, or the legislature body governing America.

Upon his assumption of office, President Johnson strived to speed up restoration of the Southern States and held a lot of wartime laws in abeyance, claiming that they were not suitable during peacetime. He also questioned the powers of Congress and often disputed the role and powers of Congress. He also removed several Republican government officers and replaced them with people who, he believed, would support him in his efforts to undermine Congress, violate legislations and assist him during his testing times.

The Congress believed that the President was abusing his Presidential powers and remonstrated that he could not alone enact reconstruction policy without the approval of Congress. (US History Encyclopedia: Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson).

The Congress felt that certain actions of the President were not reasonable and hence adopted The Tenure of Office Act. Under this law, no Government official could be removed from office, unless Senate confirmed his replacement. Another aspect was that the term of members was dependent upon the tenure of the President. Thus the term of members naturally came to end exactly a month after President of USA quit office.

Emboldened by the fact that Congress was no match to exercise of Presidential powers, Johnson sought suspension of Reconstruction Act and wanted to replace Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton with Mr. Ulysses S. Grant. He was successful in doing so, however, later on, Stanton was reinstated and Grant stepped back from this post.

Beginning of impeachment motion

It was in 1867, that the first impeachment motion was moved against President Johnson for obstruction, unconstitutional removal of Secretary of War, Stanton and also his apparent contempt of Congress and abuse of Presidential powers. However, the Chairman of the Committee felt that impeachment could only be moved in case of cognizable offence of specific nature. But, it was also felt that Stanton’s removal was not in best practices by the President. and he was reinstated as Secretary of War.

This infuriated President Johnson and he now sought the use of Tenure of Office Act to have the Secretary of War compulsorily removed from office.

“Johnson was bent upon challenging validity of Tenure of Office Act in court, but to do so he would have to replace Stanton and defy the Senate. This he did on February 21, 1868, naming as the new Secretary of War Major General Lorenzo Thomas.“ (Linder).

Impeachment proceedings

Congress legislators’ attorneys pleaded that that he had dismissed Stanton merely in order to generate a court issue that could challenge the validity of Tenure of Office Act.

However, Johnson’s lawyers pleaded that Stanton’s term had ended a month after President Lincoln’s demise and thus the Tenure of Office Act could not be enforced in this case, and President had made a mistake in invoking it, but could not be evacuated from office for this mistake. However, President Johnson’s lawyers failed to impress on how he could have determined the invalidity of the Tenure of Office Act by invoking a law which was not applicable in the case of Mr. Stanton.

Verdict of the Jury: Not guilty

During the impeachment and conviction trial it was believed that the impeachment and Conviction of President Johnson was apparent. However, during the proceedings of the Deliberations it became increasingly cogent that most Republicans would not proceed with impeachment charges on all 11 Articles of Constitution considered to have been infringed. This is because most felt that a President could not be summarily removed for violation of any act, arising more out of mistake, than design.

Moreover there were concerns that no specific, cognizable and punitive offence prohibited by law and categorically punishable by law has been attributed in this impeachment case against President Andrew Johnson. And this was what actually transpired. In the end the jury returned verdict ‘not guilty’ with prosecution falling one short of the required votes necessary for impeachment of President Johnson.

Conclusion

It could be concluded that the attempted impeachment proceedings of this President could be seen in terms of desire of Republican Congress to gain more power for themselves at the expense of Democratic rulers. They may have been of the opinion that if he is not stopped, he may assume more obstruction and non- democratic means to achieve ends which may be prejudicial to the interests of the American county and its people. (Benedict, P.181).

However, they also felt that conviction would not be in their interests of the American heritage and history since this would cast a slur on America as a whole, to the delight of her detractors. Again, the fate of the American people in the hands of a new and untested Presidential candidate was the last thing in the minds of the people.

It was precisely for these and other reasons that the impeachment motion was overruled and President Johnson declared not guilty by the majority legislators.

Works Cited

US History Encyclopedia: Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson. 2008. Web.

Linder, Douglas O. The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson Impeachment. 2008. Web.

Benedict, Michael Les. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. Epilogue, 2008. Web.

• Student Name
• Professor Name
• Course
• Date
• Historical Context Assignment

Introduction

For the efficient development of the nation, it is essential to maintain stable international relationships. After the United States had emerged as an independent nation, the responsibility to stabilize the international relationships was the task of the first few presidents. The current essay examines the foreign policy actions that Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe have undertaken to protect the United States and explains the motives behind their political tracks.

Foreign Policy Actions

Action #1

The first action is Jay Treaty which was originally written by Alexander Hamilton and consequently supported by George Washington. The document regulates the international relationship between the United States and England. George Washington believed that the treaty is beneficial to the United States due to the stabilization of the relationship with England.

Action #2

Louisiana Purchase treaty allowed the United States to almost double its territory and have additional security. The deal is considered to be Jefferson’s most notable achievement concerning foreign policies and has greatly benefited America.

Action #3

The international relationship policy by James Monroe establishes that any foreign intervention in the politics of the United States should be considered hostile. The president believed that the document would protect the United States by clearly asserting its sphere of dominance.

Conclusion

Summing up, the current essay presents the foreign policy actions that the three presidents, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, have undertaken to stabilize international relationships. The three presidents have chosen these political courses according to their beliefs of what would be the best for the United States. The after-effects of the described treaties have shaped American history and heavily influenced how the rest of the world perceives the United States.

Works Cited

Gleijeses, Piero. “Napoleon, Jefferson, and the Louisiana Purchase.” The International History Review, vol. 39. no. 2, 2016, pp. 237-255.

Jacobs, Matthew. “Monroe Doctrine.” The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, pp. 1-7.

Monroe, James. The Monroe Doctrine. 1823. Web.

Smith, Caitlin. “The Jay Treaty Free Passage Right in Theory and Practice.” American Indian Law Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, 2017, pp. 160-180.

United States, Great Britain. Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannick Majesty; and the United States of America, by their President, with the Advice and Consent of their Senate. London, 1974.

United States, French Republic. The Louisiana Purchase: Treaty Between the United States of America and the French Republic. Paris, 1803.

Modern presidency is a concept which describes the time period, which executive control over policy became the norm and not the exception. In The Qualities of Effective Presidents: An Overview from FDR to Bill Clinton, Fred Greenstein develops six standards on how to rate presidential performance. He discusses these six standards within the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton. Also, Greenstein compares different administration’s abilities to meet these standards. Finally, Greenstein explains the most influential of these characteristics, emotional intelligence, as having the most profound impact on any administration.

Communicating to the public, especially today, has become an art that many presidential hopefuls seek to master. Greenstein explains that all presidents must polish their communication skills, and most did this in the latter portions of their careers. (179). However, President Bush, Sr., thought he could bypass this problem by changing speaking venues and limiting his public speeches. Perhaps even more important is communication within the administration’s staff. The alumni, as Greenstein refers to it, will either praise their Commander in Chief or they will hold contempt against him. Eisenhower believed this to be very important, and as such, he created a very diverse group of political advisors. (Greenstein, 179).

Furthermore, political skill is also perpetuated by organizational capacity. Political skill can be broken down into the methods a president uses to develop relationships with congresspersons and get policies passed. The Johnson administration made key positions for domestic matters. Greenstein continues that Johnson’s public popularity also got a boost when, in 1963, Johnson forced Congress to work past its session. (180). Aside from political skill, policy vision also incorporates the relationships with Congress. Vision can also be described as the ability for policy to clearly and concisely state its objectives. Although Roosevelt could be considered the best at this, Bush Sr. found out about the problems associated with inconsistency, undesired policy effects, and drift from original intentions. (Greenstein, 182).

Moreover, the cognitive style could lead to the same results as policy vision, if an administration was not careful. Cognitive style should be thought of in terms of strategic intelligence. Greenstein states that while Nixon was perhaps the best at cognitive style, given his Vietnam policy, Truman and Reagan both were known for imperfections in their own understanding of policies. (182). Emotional intelligence plays a dual role with strategic intelligence. However, given American politics, popularity among the citizens is almost strictly dependent on emotional intelligence. Rather, the lack of emotional intelligence can eclipse an entire administration. Although most administrations maintained an even keel approach to emotional intelligence; the mood swings of Johnson, Carter’s my way or the highway mentality, and Clinton’s personal scandals are all examples of the other side of the coin. (Greenstein, 183). Greenstein points out that none of this compared to Nixon’s handicap of bouts with anger and suspiciousness, which clouded his whole administration. (183).

Greenstein explains that every president is human; as such, they are expected to have imperfections. However, some of these are much more disabling to an administration than others. Greenstein states six characteristics by which a presidential administration’s effectiveness can be judged. Of these six, emotional intelligence is the sleeping giant. If awake, the effect is not only devastating to an administration, it is often crippling.

Works Cited

Greenstein, Fred I. “The Qualities of Effective Presidents: An Overview from FDR to Bill Clinton”. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 30.1 (2000): 178-85.

Abstract

This paper analyzes the tax cut policies that were introduced by the former President Bush and his Administration between 2001 and 2003. The paper discusses how such policies affected different households categorized on the basis of income.

The impact of the tax cuts on the high-income households, the middle-income households and the low-income households have been assessed. The study found out that former regimes enacted tax cut policies that mainly favored the poor by ensuring that they paid little or no income taxes. On the other hand, the wealthy contributed the greatest portion of federal tax revenues. The introduction of Bush tax cut policies made use of the remaining options, that is, tax rates that concerned the rich. As a result, President Bush tax cut policies do not necessarily favor the rich at the expense of the poor.

Introduction

The tax cut policies that were proposed by President Bush were made into law in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 (Edwards, 2006). The impact of these law policies on different households is difficult to analyze due to a number of reasons. First, the concrete comprehensive information concerning the amount of taxes paid by different households is obtainable only following a time lag. Second, even though the effect of changes in taxes on different households is the major scope of many studies, the tax code also affects the households.

For instance, the level of tax differs depending on the source of income such as wages, corporate profits and dividends. The taxes also differ depending on the size of family and whether or not the unit is an individual or a company. Despite all these difficulties inherent in the tax system, the impact of the President Bush tax cut policy has been researched and analyzed by a number of scholars and tax experts. However, the opinions differ as to whether the policies have favored the rich and deteriorated the living standards of the poor or vice versa.

Body

Taylor (2004) argues that the tax cut policies of President Bush have minimized the amount of tax bills initially paid by those at the peak of the income distribution. This group of income earners comprises of those individuals and corporations that earn greater than $1 million per annum. The cut of the tax rates in the two uppermost brackets from 39.6% in 2001 to 35% in 2003, and from 36% in 2001 to 33% in 2003 significantly reduced the amount of tax expenses paid by this group (Taylor, 2004, p.87).

This group also profited from reduced tax duties on dividends and capital gains. Nevertheless, individuals and corporations that belong to the upper-middle income bracket and that earn six figure incomes have not profited from the tax cut policies as much as the top income earners have. This is because of the fact that even though they paid less regular tax, they were now forced to pay the substitute minimum tax. As a result, the amount of money saved from the tax cuts is not significantly large.

President Bush tax cut policies similarly profited the individuals and corporations belonging in the middle and low income distribution. The tax cut policy of 2001 for instance minimized the lowest tax duty by 5 percent, that is, from 15 to 10 percent (Edwards, 2006). The policy also increased the tax credit available for children and made it repayable. This means that although an individual owed the government no taxes, the tax credit permitted an individual with children to collect a check. This policy is indeed beneficial to families that have children (Taylor, 2004).

A great percentage of the tax cuts introduced by President Bush were enjoyed by individuals and corporations belonging to the high income earners group. The tax cut policies introduced in 1986, 1990 and 1993 significantly reduced the tax bill paid by the low income earners to almost nil in some cases. By 2001, the bottom three-fifths of the households classified in terms of income contributed roughly 3.2% of government taxes whereas the top one-fifth of households contributed 82% of government taxes (Taylor, 2004, p.89).

It is therefore expected that any further reductions in taxes would benefit the high income earners. Tax cut policies like those introduced by President Bush can only benefit the low income earners in two ways. First, if the reduction in income taxes is refundable (for instance the tax credit given to individuals and families with children as well as the tax credit given to those working but living below the poverty threshold), then individuals who do not owe the government taxes can receive payments from the government.

Secondly, a tax cut can benefit the poor as long as that tax cut is not income-based. This includes a reduction in payroll taxes that fund social safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare (Senese, 2003, p.468). Such tax cuts could be of great benefit to low income earners. Nonetheless, such a tax cut policy would violate the Universalist principle of such social programs which requires that everyone should contribute the same proportion of income up to a particular income level.

Through the past decades, the proportion of government taxes paid by the top income earners has been on the upward trend. Friedman and Shapiro state that, “the top one-fifth of taxpayers, ranked by income, paid 56.3 percent of total federal tax revenues in 1980 (including income, payroll and all other federal taxes), 57.9 percent in 1990, and 66.7 percent in 2000,” (2004, p.3). Although the tax cuts introduced by President Bush in 2001 reduced the tax bill of the top income earners and halted the long-run tendency of the government collecting high tax revenues from this group, this group still contributed the highest federal tax revenues compared to other groups.

The impact of the tax cuts on different households varies widely. On the one hand, the top 20 percent of households belonging to the middle-income group get a mean tax cut of approximately $647 from the 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax cuts. Secondly, the highest 1 percent of households belonging to the high income bracket enjoys an average tax cut of close to $35,000 which is almost 54 times the average tax cut enjoyed by middle income earners (Friedman and Shapiro, 2004).

On the other hand, individuals and households earning above $1 million enjoyed tax cuts that averaged approximately $123,000. These tax cuts have increased the disposable income of millionaires by close to 6.4 percent which is greater than the increase received by the middle fifth by three-fold (Friedman and Shapiro, 2004). The general portions of the tax cuts that are received by the different households also vary widely.

The middle one-fifth of households enjoyed only 8.9 percent of the tax cuts in 2004 whereas the highest income earners (millionaires) who comprise only 0.2 percent of the American households enjoyed 15.3 percent of the tax cuts in the same year. This shows that the top 0.2 percent of the total households (the millionaires) received almost double the tax cuts received by 20 percent of the total households (the middle income earners). The tax cuts awarded over $30 billion to 257,000 individuals (the country’s millionaires) in 2004 alone (Friedman and Shapiro, 2004). This uneven and unfair allocation of tax cuts is likely to grow over the years as long as more tax cut policies are put in place.

The reason behind this is the fact that the tax reductions that are most likely to benefit the poor and other unprivileged groups were put in place even before the Bush Administration’s tax cut policy came into effect. On the other hand, most of the tax reductions that are most likely to benefit the rich and privileged groups – such as the abolition of the estate tax – have only been partly implemented while others are yet to be put into effect. As a result, any tax cut policy introduced will inevitably have to touch on those tax cuts that will benefit the rich.

In analyzing the tax cut policies and their impact on the different households, it is important to differentiate between the three middle-class conditions. These middle-class conditions were first ratified in 2001 but became in operation in 2003 after the Administration hastened its implementation. The middle-class provisions have been supported by different political parties unlike a majority of the other tax cut conditions such as those concerning dividends, capital gains and estate tax.

The provisions offer significant assistance to the extensive middle income earners even though it is often taken for granted that they offer substantial tax advantages to the high income earners. The allocation of tax cuts to this middle income group varies widely. The top 1% of the households in this group received a tax cut averaging about $33,700, whereas the middle 20% of the households received a tax cut averaging about $100. This implies that the top 1% of the households received more than 300 times the benefits from the tax cuts than those in the middle of the group yet those belonging to the middle of the group are more in number than those at the top (Friedman and Shapiro, 2004).

While the Bush Administration’s tax cut policies provided some benefits to the high-income and middle-income groups, the same cannot be said of the low-income groups. The Administration often tried as much as possible to avoid providing tax cuts to the low-income groups. In cases where tax cuts were offered to this group, it was always as a result of mounting pressure from the public and opposition parties. For instance, during the 2001 tax cut propositions, the Administration argued that low-income earners with children would receive child tax credit.

The limitation to this however is that such an individual would not have received any relief if they did not owe the government any income tax but instead paid large payroll taxes. This limitation was however corrected following sharp criticism and the Administration agreed to make necessary changes that would benefit the low income earners.

The tax system has some inherent problems that make the tax cut policies to unfairly benefit the wealthy. For instance, the Bush Administration often cited the advantages of the tax policies to small businesses. However, such benefits were enjoyed by only two percent of small businesses. In addition, the definition of “small business owner” given by the Administration – anyone earning at least one dollar as income – leaves a lot to be desired and provides loopholes through which wealthy individuals could benefit from such tax benefits.

Based on this definition, an individual does not have to possess an important business to qualify for such tax cut benefits. As a result, many wealthy individuals with businesses but who do other work such as consulting are included in this category. Friedman and Shapiro argue that, “many of those in the top bracket are better characterized as very-high-income individuals, such as corporate executives, with some business investments,” (2004, p.6).

From the above analysis of the President Bush tax cut policies, it is not ethical to state that his policies were in favor of the rich and against the poor. For one, the poor had already benefited from tax cut policies that were enacted and implemented in the previous regimes before President Bush took office. Such policies ensured that the low-income earners paid little or no income taxes while the high-income earners contributed the greatest percentage of federal tax revenues.

Secondly, even though the tax cuts introduced by President Bush did not have many benefits to the low income earners, his Administration put in place other mechanisms that further reduced the burden carried by the poor and helped to improve their living standards. Such mechanisms included the child tax credit which allowed households with children to receive check from the government even if they did not the government any income tax.

Conclusion

Most importantly, the argument that President Bush tax cut policies favored the rich stemmed from the fact that most of the tax cuts introduced by his Administration are those whose sources had either been partly touched or not touched at all by the previous regimes. Past tax cuts centered on those tax sources that affected the poor and not the poor. As a result, if President Bush was to implement any tax cut, he had no option left but to touch on those tax sources that resulted from the wealthy corporations and individuals. This is in no way a matter of favoritism but rather a matter of few options left. The tax cut polices that were introduced by President Bush and his Administration therefore did not favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

References

Edwards, C. (2006). Tax policy under President Bush. CATO Institute. Web.

Friedman, J., and Shapiro, I. (2004). Tax returns: A comprehensive assessment of the Bush Administration’s record on cutting taxes. Web.

Senese, D.J. (2003). Policy challenges for senior citizens: Reforms in Social Security, Medicare, and taxes are essential to help seniors and keep our economy strong. Vital Speeches of the Day, 69.15, 468.

Taylor, T. (2004). The economy in perspective. Public Interest, 157, 85-99.

Introduction

Lyndon Baines Johnson was born in on August 27^th 1908. Johnson was a democrat and he became the president of the United States after John F Kennedy was assassinated. He completed Kennedy’s term and was elected as the president to run his own term. As a president he played a big part in the design of the great society legislation. The legislation had civil rights laws, laws for elderly people healthcare, and laws for poor people healthcare, education aid, and war on poverty. During his tenure he escalated the Vietnam War by increasing the number of American soldiers participating in the war. Johnson was also able to solve a lot of political, economic and social problems of the United States citizens.

His Presidency

On November 22^nd 1963 Johnson was sworn in as president while onboard an air force one plane by Judge Sarah Hughes, this was after the sudden assassination of his predecessor John F Kennedy. Johnson promised to carry on Kennedy’s programs although he maintained some members of the cabinet who had been appointed by Kennedy including Kennedy’s Brother Robert F Kennedy who Johnson had a bad relationship with (Banta 27).

The civil rights

The civil rights movement began in the year 1954 after the supreme decided to ban public schools which promoted racism. Johnson played big part in the war against racism by passing the civil rights act of 1964 which indicated that racism was outlawed. This was one of the steps that Johnson had taken to carry on John Kennedy programs as it was John Kennedy who first proposed the act and gathered votes in the senate to support the act before his death. In July 2^nd 1964 he signed the act into law. He further passed the voting civil rights bill which enabled millions of Black Americans to vote for the first time. Racism is seen as one of the social problems that greatly affected the Americans during the six tees but Johnson is seen as to have played a great role in fighting the vice. He heightened his war by announcing the arrest of four Ku Klux clan members who were implicated in the death of a civil rights worker, and angrily denounced the Klan saying it was an illegal movement. Johnson called the Churches to push for civil rights. He even went further to nominate civil rights lawyer Thurgood Marshall as the first Black American associate justice of the Supreme Court (Farrell15).

Great society

Great society program became Johnson agenda, it addressed issues such as “education aid, disease attack, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, poverty eradication, crime, and control voting rights” (Dulker 105).

Education Funding

Johnson believed that education was the cure for ignorance and poverty and was the key to solving problems that bedeviled the minority and disadvantaged groups. After being elected as president in 1964 he gathered votes for the elementary and secondary education act which would see large amounts of government money going to supporting schools. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) main aim was to help children from poor families attend school by providing more funds to the public district schools whose large population was made up of the poor (Davidson 92).

ESEA also assisted private schools by offering them services such as library funding. Johnson further boosted the education sector by gathering votes for the higher education act that was presented in the senate; that was in the year 1965. The act’s intention was to fund low income students with grants, work-study money and government loans. Johnson then later on set up national endowment for the humanities and national endowment for the arts to assist students who wished to pursue careers in humanities and arts (Davidson 92).

War on poverty

Johnson’s war on poverty started in the year1964 as he requested the members of the senate to pass a tax reduction law and the economic opportunity act. In 1965 Johnson was at the center of advocating for the Medicare amendment for the Social Security Act; he signed the two bills at the Truman’s Library. The bill’s aim was to offer low income citizens with a government funded medical care. During his tenure Johnson called for hundreds of millions to be spent on housing on poor suburbs and cities. By the year 1967 Johnson’s administration had succeeded in increasing wages to unprecedented levels that no previous president had ever achieved. Unemployment had also been decreased and corporate and farm profits had grown to unimaginable levels (Mueller 23).

Vietnam War

Johnson is known to have played a great part in the fight against communist expansion by practicing the containment policy. After Kennedy’s death he increased the army participation in the Vietnam War from 16,000 to almost 500,000 soldiers (Mueller 27). Domestic issues played a big role in the war which saw his popularity plummet, and as the war grew less popular rifts in the Democratic Party started emerging. However Johnson’s participation in the Vietnam War was greatly supported by the Republicans and even though the Vietnam War played a big role in affecting his popularity, it strengthened the United State’s influence across the world.

Israel’s friendship with the United States was strengthened during Johnson’s tenure which he did by setting up a training ground for its army in Gibraltar to enable Israel defend itself during the six day war that took place June 1967. This act heightened the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union which supported its Arab allies. In May the same year, the Soviet Union had already deployed its naval forces to the East Mediterranean region to prepare themselves for any probable occurrence of war with the United States and Britain (Mueller 27).

Major Bills Johnson signed

During his tenure Johnson had been able to sign a number of bills. In the year 1964 he signed six major bills which included; the Civil Rights Act, Urban Mass Transportation Act, the Wilderness Act, Nurse Training Act, the Food Stamp Act and the Economic Opportunity Act. In the year 1965 he signed four major bills which included; the Higher Education Act, the Social Security Act, The Voting Rights Act and the Immigration and Nationality Services Act. In 1966 he signed only one major bill the Freedom of Information Act. In 1967 he signed two which were; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Public Broadcasting Act and lastly in the year 1968 he signed two, the Fair Housing Act and the Gun Control Act (Banta 27).

Legacy

Due to his great achievements Johnson is well remembered in the US for his contribution for the country, these contributions are remembered in a number of ways which include; the Houston Spacecraft Centre that is named Lyndon B. Johnson Center, Texas state also created an official holiday to celebrate Johnson’s birthday, the LBJ school of public affairs was named after Johnson to honor him, the interstate freeway in Dallas has renamed the LBJ freeway, Johnson was also awarded the presidential medal of freedom in the year 1980 among many others.

Conclusion

Johnson’s term ended in 1969 and during his term he was able to solve a lot of political, economic and social problems which faced the United States citizens. The problems included; poverty, education and racism. He was also able strengthen the United State’s involvement in worldwide issues and reaffirm the country’s number one position as a leading global power.

Works cited

Banta, Joseph: “President Lyndon B Johnson”. the Christiandelphian (1964). 26-32.

Davidson, C: “public papers of the Lyndon B Johnson”. Randall (1965). 92-100.

Dulker, J: “twentieth century world history”. Thompson (2005). 100-106.

John, Farrell. “Tip of the democratic century”. Brown (2001). 12-18.

John, Mueller: “war president and public opinion” Brown (1973). 20-35.

Introduction

Leadership has the capacity for both evil and good. Sound leadership results in freedom and productivity, while poor governance often results in a dictatorship, poverty, corruption, and all vices. This essay briefly highlights a few differences between an Egyptian Pharaoh and the American Presidential system. The comparisons go some way into helping discern which of the two leadership styles would result in better governance. The Pharaoh in ancient Egypt and today’s American President both wield immense power, but I prefer to be an American President rather than an Egyptian Pharaoh.

Discussion

An individual became an Egyptian Pharaoh because they shared the same bloodline as a king or a queen; hence, it was a hereditary system in many instances. Pharaohs became leaders of the nation by birth and attained higher positions. On the other hand, one becomes an American president through the electoral system. Firstly, one has to be a fourteen-year resident, a natural-born citizen, and at least 35 years old. The candidate then undergoes an election process where the winner must beat the competitors from various political parties by at least 270 Electoral College votes out of the 538 Electoral College votes. The inauguration for the new President occurs on January 20th, unlike the Egyptian system, where one could become king at any time. Moreover, one could become a Pharaoh at any age, even below 35 years. A US president serves a 4-year term, after which s/he seeks a fresh mandate from the public through elections for a maximum of two periods, while a Pharaoh was king for life.

The Pharaohs in Egypt were responsible for establishing and enforcing all laws governing the territory. They were the supreme commanders of the Egyptian military and answered no one. Secondly, Pharaohs held the title ‘Lord of the Two Lands.’ The title came with added duties of commanding the army and resolving legal disputes. Their task was to unite Lower and Upper Egypt under one monarchy. Thirdly, the Pharaohs symbolized the fathers of the land as they ensured citizens had abundant food through their ‘limitless’ power. On the other hand, the US president is the chief executive who grants reprieves and pardons, appoints critical federal officials, and executes the laws. Secondly, as the Commander-in-Chief, s/he runs the Unites States military. The President is also the chief legislator who works with Congress on budgets, introduces legislation, and vetoes or signs laws.

The Egyptian Pharaoh was the people’s religious leader, considered the divine intercessor between the people and the gods; thus, he participated in ceremonies and maintained religious harmony in the territory. The Pharaoh was each temple’s high priest in Egypt and was the earthly representative of the Egyptian gods. On the other hand, US Presidents are not heads of religion for the people. The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making legislations that respect the establishment of religion, hence signaling a separation between Church and State. The US is a republic where the Church and State manage their affairs without interfering. The President is the head of State and does not meddle in Church/ religious affairs.

Conclusion

The Egyptian Pharaoh and the American President both wielded great power, played critical roles in legislation, could pardon, and controlled their militaries. However, I prefer to be an American President rather than an Egyptian Pharaoh. Firstly, the Egyptian system had no checks and balances, and the king ruled, even if they were too young to understand how to rule the country. On the other hand, the electorate checks American Presidents and votes them out if they underperform or misuse their office. There is also a provision for impeaching a sitting president due to misconduct. The separation of Church and State affairs also allows the US President to focus on enhancing the people’s lives while protecting the US citizens’ rights to freedom of worship. The American President has advisers who help make sound decisions rather than acting on self-deceived impulses as the god-like Pharaohs did.

It is impossible to imagine the modern world without medical insurance. However, Americans could not always benefit from this essential phenomenon. In his message to Congress on November 19, 1945, Truman offered a health program. He emphasized the necessity to provide adequate public-health services, establish more hospitals, create medical insurance, and others (Warner & Tighe, 2001). It was necessary because “by the 1950s, more and more people survived formerly fatal injuries and diseases,” but with severe consequences for their health (National Museum of American History, n.d. para. 2). However, Truman’s proposal did not face overall positive attitudes, and the American Medical Association (AMA) actively opposed it. Thus, the principal purpose of this paper is to explain the reasoning behind this confrontation.

On the one hand, the AMA was against the health program because this body believed that communists and Stalin were responsible for its creation (Warner & Tighe, 2001). After World War II, it was not a surprise that a reference to the Soviet Union resulted in much criticism in the United States. On the other hand, AMA representatives offered their plan of how to make the health care system better. They stated that “there must be no third party intervention, by any nonmedical board or panel or supervisor, between doctor and patient” (Warner & Tighe, 2001, p. 440). Thus, the AMA opposed Truman because it believed that medicine should have been free from government influence.

In conclusion, the case with Truman’s National Health Program demonstrates that even the best initiatives can be rendered hostile. In this case, for example, historical prejudice resulted in criticism of the proposal. Furthermore, the American Medical Association thought that government agencies did not have the right to affect the health care industry. It is fortunate that the organization failed to achieve its goal and that Truman’s proposal resulted in the creation of medical insurance.

References

National Museum of American History. (n.d.). Self-definition and autonomy. Web.

Warner, J. H., & Tighe, J. A. (2001). Major problems in the history of American medicine and public health: documents and essays. Houghton Mifflin.