Presidential Transitions During The Transition Period Of The Presidency

The president’s accumulation of personal power can make up for his lack of institutional powers. The president must act as the “lubricant” for the other sectors of government in order to preserve order and accomplish business. Neustadt emphasizes the president’s ability to forge strong personal relationships and his or her

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

Two major turning historical turning points during the era from Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama were: a) the end of the Cold War as Mikhail Gorbachev introduced democratic institutions into Soviet society; and b) the terrorists attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., changed the way Americans think about protecting their homeland and motivated the president (Bush) to launch a disastrous war in Iraq.

This essay will attempt to analyze Ronald Reagan’s Challenger address in terms of the rhetorical situation theorized by Dr. Blitzer and elaborated by Dr. Zarefsky in his book Public Speaking. The effectiveness of the Challenger address will be evaluated by carefully identifying and examining each of the four components of the rhetorical situation within the context of this speech.

The rhetorical situation refers to “a situation in which people’s understanding can be changed through messages.” (Zarefsky, 12). The rhetorical situation analysis consists of four elements: audience, occasion, speaker and speech, each assessing the quality of speech. In this essay, I will analyze the rhetorical situation of the historical speech “The Challenger Address” delivered by the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan.

John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech is certainly one to remember. It’s memorable not for its length, but for the effective content that it beholds. He entices readers by the use of strong rhetoric techniques. His inaugural analyzes style of writing, such as diction, tropes, schemes, and syntax, and applies the concept of it effectively throughout the speech. A reader performs rhetorical analysis to examine how authors attempt to persuade their audiences by looking at the various components that make up the art of persuasion. Moreover, it is most essential to be able to understand the relationship among the speaker, subject, and audience, which President Kennedy adequately exploits in his speech.

The rhetorical situation refers to “a situation in which people’s understanding can be changed through messages.” (Zarefsky, 12). The rhetorical situation analysis consists of four elements: audience, occasion, speaker and speech, each assessing the quality of speech. In this essay, I will analyze the rhetorical situation of the historical speech “The Challenger Address” delivered by the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan.

John F. Kennedy once said, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic.” In this single sentence, he uses a method of Aristotle’s persuasive speech making. One of the greatest examples of using rhetorical strategies is indeed John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address of 1961. John F. Kennedy uses diction, syntax, and Aristotle’s method of persuasion in his inaugural address that not only made it uniquely his own, but made it undoubtedly one of the best, emotion tugging, speeches ever.

With the end of World War Two and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States emerged on the global stage as one of the planet's great economic and military powers. It is safe to say that with America's change in status, and in conjunction with profound industrial and technological change, that presidential leadership would necessarily have to transform yet again to meet a new era; nowhere could two different styles of leadership to meet the age be seen than in the Cold War administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. Both men would exhibit a unique style of leadership suited to the personality of each, and each style could be considered to characterize the administration of each president, but nevertheless, both men would also use very similar leadership styles when necessary in order to attain certain policy goals.

The views of the presidency by the first sixteen presidents varied widely but all of their actions set precedents for their successors to use, expand, or even curtail the power of the office. Some believed in the Whig theory of strict adherence to the constitution, while others believed the president was the steward of the people with a loose interpretation of it. The power of the office expanded through the years, however it only expanded as far as the public and congress allowed.

In the admittedly short life time of the Presidential branch its occupants have taken massive strides in empowering and strengthening their office. At times a case could be made that the executive has aspired to too much; threating essential American political values, such is the case of President Franklin Roosevelt who secured a third term of office ignoring precedent and tradition. However, evidence would suggest that for any significant step a president takes towards increasing their power; often results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is not to say that our presidents are weak, in actuality we see that our presidents have significantly increased their power to wage war

The modern presidency has in a sense become a double-edged sword in that presidents have become beneficiaries of anything positive that can be attributed to government, but also can be blamed for anything bad occurring in society. Quite simply, the modern president has become the center of our political system (The Modern Presidency, 2004). The men who have dealt with this double-edged sword known as the modern presidency have often walked a very fine line between effectiveness and ineffectiveness, but all have attempted to use their power in one way or another.

The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be

The presidency occupies a unique position in all systems of government including the American system of government. The formal powers and the constitutional position occupied by the institution of the presidency are at the core of all national and international politics (Alexandrova & Timmermans, 2013). The President can serve as Commander-in-chief, nominate and appoint ambassadors, just to name a few of the powers of office. However, there is another power that is often overlooked by most, the power of agenda setting. The Constitution does not directly state this power, but it is heavily implied. This paper scrutinizes the institution of the presidency in line with agenda-setting literature. The agenda setting process relates to a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The agenda setting process has three streams that incorporate the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. The problem stream relates to potential policy problems that may have different magnitudes attached to them. The policy stream associates with an agglomeration of potential solutions to policy problems (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2010). Additionally, the politics stream links to those policy issues and solutions that

Using a line graph, we are able to visualize the trend of words as used by the three presidents. President Clinton had a higher repetition of the most common words as compared to the other two presidents. As the time passes we see that the repetition of the common words reduces with Clinton leading with the highest number followed by Bush, and Obama in that order as seen on the line graph in Figure 2. From the graph we can conclude that the rate of change of the commonly used words has changes as from Clinton to Bush and finally to Obama. The repetition of the words and, the, and to during Clinton’s regime has steadily declined consistently in the Bush and Obama regime. On overall analysis repetitions of the words for the most part has declined