A Great Trial On The President Of The United States

For many years, American Presidents were viewed as being white and powerful leaders. Why were they only white? Is it because Americans felt Blacks were not smart enough to run a country on their own? African Americans were viewed as less dominate people and have been discriminated because of the color of their skin. In 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States making him the first black president ever. In this paper, I will discuss how Barack makes a change and if America can accept him as our first black president.

The presidential inauguration is uniquely sacramental: the peaceful transition of power is representative of the strength that has made the United States the oldest democracy on Earth. Every 4 years, a new or incumbent president delivers this address to the nation, setting forth the principles that will guide the new administration, and uniting the nation under shared commonplaces. Each president is given the opportunity to establish themselves as distinct from the presidents before them. In the past decade, we have seen two unique presidents with two drastically different visions of America deliver their message to the United States of America. While both call upon shared national values and the unity of the nation under difficult circumstances, they differ in terms of inclusion and diversity within America. Both presidents deliver compelling arguments that encourage the American people to serve their country in diverse ways.

The election of 1980 marked a ‘new political era’ that was ushered in by President Reagan and that followed on through the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. These presidents were inaugurated at different times and succeeded the successes and the failures of their predecessors. Having came from different political backgrounds and having unique political and social beliefs, Bush, Reagan, and Clinton can only be analyzed through their foreign policies, domestic policies, achievements as well as shortcomings, and legacies.

The presidents has always played a crucial role in American politics and are known for their roles in unifying the nation. They are glorified for their charisma and ability to lead, but even these brilliant men have lapses in their judgement. Andrew Jackson, who was president from 1829-1837, was a president of many firsts as he was the first frontier president, first to have a “kitchen cabinet”, and first to use a pocket veto. Jackson was later succeeded by his vice president, Martin Van Buren. Van Buren, who was in office from 1837-1841, was known for his shrewd political skills. Both these men laid down the foundations for a stronger, more centralized national government with methods that garnered mixed responses.

After these basic questions, we face a second problem: deciding which factors are important when attempting to determine presidential greatness. James

This expansion of executive authority represents the rule rather than the exception in American Politics. As a nation, we expect our president to do nothing less than solve all national problems and unite the country. Anything less is a failure. To match that responsibility Presidents must increase the rather limited power granted onto them by the constitution. This relationship forms the crux of the thus vicious cycle that has defined the Presidency: wherein expectation dictates expansion that in turn dictates more expectation. Presidents who refuse to act in this manner are regarded by history as mediocre and prompt the regime change discussed by Skowronek in his theory of Presidential leadership.

The presidency, even though loose in definition, upholds high standards for this country and are often the face of emotion and strength for America. The presidency is much more than just an institution or title, it is the focus for the most intense and persistent emotions in the American polity. The president is a symbolic leader, the one figure who draws together the people’s hopes and fears for the political future. He or she strives to help people make sense of politics. The support he or she has from the public and interest groups, the party balance in COngress, the thrust of the Supreme COurt opinion together set the basic power situation he must deal with. The president should be a “master politician” who is above all politics. Each President defines a unique leadership role that is strategic choice to enhance political

The Presidents over time has increased the power of the office beyond what is specifically stipulated in the U.S. Constitution in many ways. Part of it has to do with how over time the Presidents all became distracted by the other President’s pressing issues. Congress’s decisions required that all the Presidents control their agenda, but only a few of the Presidents even managed to do that. Each of Presidents the over time approached developments and final approaches of the legislation, but some were unable to promote their certain provisions that they had. Historical Presidency and Modern Presidency shows how the power of the office has increased over time.

No matter the size of the group, every group has a figure that leads them. Leaders need to have leadership; leadership are the skills that a leader uses to move a group forward. It propels the group to move in the right direction. Presidents are leaders of a country, an enormous group, a group nonetheless. A president has to have a transparent leadership in order for the people of America to trust him, if his leadership skills are lackluster, the people will begin to doubt his ability to move the country forward. In this paper, I will try to explore the type of leadership that is needed for the next president of America, what can be accomplished with great leadership skills and how depending the leadership of the next president, will affect

The eight years of George Bush’s presidency were some of the most controversial, and consequential of any president’s in our nations history. There were many domestic and foreign concerns that were in the forefront of the country’s mind, and they had to be dealt with swiftly and with great competence. Whether that is how President Bush handled those concerns is still highly debated, by the common man and the President himself. In his book “Decision Points”, President Bush documents the processes and thoughts he went through in deliberating the responses to the many conflicts that he faced in his early life, his governorship, and mainly his presidency. As in any presidency there are successes and failures, and Bush displays his opinions of his. The memoir provides a more personal feel to a man who was in a position that most people can feel little personal connection with. He provides an honest and insightful into the inner workings of his cabinet, his decisions, and his reactions to the world around him. Though typically regarded as a negative presidency by most scholars, Bush does a sufficient job of manifesting the fact that there were positives of his presidency. George Bush was able to be successful in his help to victims of AIDS and malaria in Africa, and

The election of President Obama marks the most noteworthy political accomplishment for African Americans in the United States during the post-civil rights revolution, thus bringing about a change in the country’s social and political landscape that was steeped in racial discrimination since the founding of this great nation. Because social and political conditions are subject to constant change, President Obama’s

From September eleventh to his handling of hurricane Katrina and the invasion of Iraq, there is an abundance of crisis related information we can use to judge, define, and sum President Bush’s leadership. Nevertheless, through his contribution to various cultures, leadership, and social outreach intervention programs President Bush excellently portrayed what it means to be a world president and humanitarian.

During the the two presidential terms of George W. Bush (2001-2009), America experienced many events that left it changed dramatically. For example, in Bush’s first year as president alone, America witnessed 9/11, a corporate accounting scandal, and a recession. The economy reflected these events, leaving it in a turbulent state. The George W. Bush administration addressed these economic issues, by introducing revolutionizing policies that left consequences for America to cope with for years to come.

In order to evaluate whether a president was good or bad, one must first decide what constitutes a good president and a bad president. To me, a good president is one who does more good than bad and is morally more good than bad. A good president leads for the people while a bad president leads for his own benefit and the interests of his benefactors. A good president is honest, benevolent, and dedicated to the well-being of all people, but a bad president is deceitful, greedy, and dedicated to the well-being of only himself and his allies. However, most presidents are neither good nor bad, but somewhere in between. To discover whether a president how good or bad a president is, one must focus on all of his or her actions, not just

The course of a presidency is shaped by decisions made before inauguration day. The choices a president-elect makes when staffing their White House determines how they will use the precious time they will spend in the Oval Office. The management style of a president is a function of the president’s personality with consequences for the future of the country. George W. Bush and Barack Obama are different men who constructed for themselves distinctly different White Houses, each with their own priorities, strengths, and weaknesses.