President Obam A Progressive And Pragmatist

Progress is not something that comes very quickly. It is a gradual process that takes time, in the interest of our country and the Progressive Era, more than a decade. The presidents of this time, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, were like chefs developing a recipe for the betterment of the United States. Every act that was passed, each decision that was made, was a trial or taste-test of the constantly changing recipe for the country. If something angered citizens or drew criticism, the president went back to his office, his kitchen, and was ready to make more changes. Where he left off in the progressive recipe, the next chef took over. He would analyze what had been done, identified his plan of action, and then set to work by either making

The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has arguably been considered the greatest country in the world. The supposed leader of the free world, strongest and most powerful country in the world. The definition that the United States is the ‘greatest country’ in the world is open to discussion and can be compared at many different levels, however, for the purpose of this essay, the term ‘greatness’ is measured by its economic prowess and its hard power. The term ‘hard power’ is defined as ‘a coercive approach to international political relation, especially one that involves the use of military power’. After eight years of Obama doctrine, is it time to make America great again” must be broken down into two parts. What is Obama Doctrine, does it exist and then compare his Doctrine also tackle the quote of ‘making America great again’. This essay will argue that Obama Doctrine does exist and is linked to his foreign and domestic policies. It will also argue that America is still great but for different reasons. It will provide evidence that with the Obama doctrine it has moved from the historic use of hard power to a soft power footing. ‘Soft power” is defined as ‘a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economical or cultural influence’. However, even with this switch in posture, the United States has remained great. Albeit for

In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation, he warned the United States to strive for continuous balance so that the power of the military and industrial complex would not harm the democratic process. The goal was to maintain agreement and compromise on issues existing in the current moment, as well as the solutions that would help to shape the nation in the coming future. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment (Eisenhower, II).

President Obama came into office in the aftermath of the disastrous foreign policy record of the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had served as a “switchman,” leading to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration exercised unilateral use of force and reluctance to engage the international community. As a result global elites and publics viewed the US unfavorably. The US economy was negatively affected by the costs of the wars coupled with the financial crisis of 2007. It was this environment that defined the contours of the election campaign of 2008. Obama campaigned on the idea of change, which represented a regeneration of America through domestic public policy reform and a return to multilateralism in foreign policy. Both domestic and international publics and elites were galvanized by Obama’s message.

The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.

After careful consideration and evaluation of both candidates and criteria, it can be easily determined that Theodore Roosevelt should be the winner of the title of the early twentieth century’s most progressive president. Roosevelt is the best candidate because he not only worked on a large array of issues, he also was highly committed and practical in his reforms. While all of the candidates meet the criteria, Roosevelt meets it to the furthest extent and comes out on top in a close race.

Thus the imperial presidency was born from foreign affairs, from “faith and duty and the right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world” at any moment without the approval of congress (Schlesinger). Past presidents have dealt with national emergencies, this pressure is responsibility that he “must take unto himself” and act accordingly (Schlesinger). Good government starts with the appearance of our leader, and the entire executive office. The president should be representative of the all people in the United States, an exceptional role model who takes the people’s needs into account. The best time for a strong imperialistic president is when faction, anarchy, and excessive ambitions threaten it. The energy put forth by the president “generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree” than that of a weaker and more dispersed power system (Hamilton). The importance of this energy highlights the respect our government continues to have for the constitution because of the importance it maintains in this day and age.

There is every sign that Barack Obama is placing the bleak economic situation at the top of his agenda, despite a number of problematic foreign policy challenges being in his in-tray when he arrived at the White House. Indeed, it would appear that on some key issues such as human rights abuses in China, the new US President is subordinating previously stated policy priorities in favor of forging stronger relations with foreign powers.

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

After earning his master’s degree and Ph. D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Famous historian William Appleman Williams of Atlantic, Iowa, wrote the book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in response to the rampant changing things happening around him. Enraged, Williams’ addresses several points with foreign policy being the main one. He encompasses several themes throughout his book such as American capitalism, the failure of American liberalism, and the Open door notes. These themes help convey his view on the matters at hand, which for a lack of a better term was pissed. Quite frankly, Williams’ gets straight to the point without being around the bush with his extremely biased views by going into depth about America’s morbid foreign policy.

The Power of President and Congress Every four years, together with not only people from over the world but also American are more excited and eager to wait for the result of U.S. presidential candidate because they elected and believed that he will bring them a hope to maintain and improve the whole scale of economic well-being as well as national security. The president is the one who has the highest power on hand to manage, regulate and solve national and international issues; however, people seem to ignore the role of Congress. In fact, the president would not be able to run the government himself without Congress’s assistance. Especially, in term of the foreign policy, it is defined as a series of strategies chosen by the state to ensure America’s interests and to achieve goals

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

The Bush Doctrine vastly expanded what the United States deems a “vital interest”—dragging preëmptive action, unilateralism, and anti-terrorism under its umbrella. Democratizing nations plays a critical role in the strategy as well. A spirit of liberalism flows through the Doctrine, as it attempts to depose tyrannical dictators to ease relations between nations and foster democracy. It