Reflection Of The Obama Doctrine

To a fairly large extent, the Obama presidency is more ‘imperiled than imperial’ seems largely true, with Obama suffering from major constraints such as Congress. The theory of the imperiled Presidency suggests that rather than being too powerful, the President does not have enough power to be effective. In contrast, imperial presidency is characterised as when a president has greater power than the constitution allows. One can argue that his pursuit of major domestic policy goals has been much more aggressive than his predecessor, Bush, suggesting Obama’s presidency as imperial. Obama once quipped, “I’m the President of the United States, not the emperor of the

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

It is ambiguous as to how President Barrack Obama shapes our politics in terms of our political regime, but it can be determined through the present outcomes of his leadership today. In The Politics Presidents Make, by Stephen Skowronek, describes that there is a life-cycle of inaugurated presidents through the history of the United States. A political regime is defined as a full cycle of presidents that induce change in our politics until it is repeated again. Through this, it is possible to determine where President Obama would stand in our political time. Skowronek also mentions four leadership categories in which past presidents are placed in: politics of reconstruction, politics of disjunction, politics of

Although the United States has been regarded as having dominant world power amongst other nations, the truth lies far from its holdings. During the George W. Bush administration (2001-09), the United States went through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq causing poor standing with other nations, and was left with a $1.2 trillion-dollar deficit. With the election of a new President, President Obama, came new opportunities. During his campaign, President Obama focused on the needs of the American people rather than the needs of those of special interest. The former State Senator, Barack Obama, and Vice

George .W. Bush and Barrack Obama two of America’s great presidents, both filled with their individual ambitions and charisma. These prominent presidents have ruled the most powerful country in the world using their different strategies and policies. George Bush, a republican was the 43rd president of America had two terms in power (cite). On the other hand Barrack Obama the first black president of America and a democrat was his successor. He is known for his charisma. Notwithstanding, their various good leadership skills and the criticisms, Obama has been a better and more successful president United States than George Bush. Despite the fact that his presidency being criticized for being a failure he has done a good job so far. Obama is showing promise in his policies trying fix the problems that were created by past American presidents in terms of handling the domestic and foreign policies.

President Barack Obama and President George W Bush are two extremely different politicians with different political backgrounds and beliefs in different political ideologies. Between both two term administrations some of their most scrutinized issues focused on the topic of foreign policy. President Obama and Bush had to deal with continuous threats and problems arising from the tumultuous political climate of the Middle East. The way each president saw it fit to eliminate the problems was quite different as, President Bush often saw it more appropriate to use military force in the intervention of these issues, where as President Obama is more likely to take a diplomatic approach before resorting to military intervention. Regardless of these differences both presidents are ultimately trying to achieve the same goal which is to achieve peace for the United States and continue the American prosperity.

Sreedhar Potarazu points out in his article “Obama's legacy is at stake” the future of the president’s mark on history. He wonders how, if the ACA doesn’t endure, the president will be remembered. Of course the first black president will always remain his honor, but as far as presidential achievements go where will Obama stand in the halls of American greatness? Potarazu is quick to point out other great leaders from our nation’s past and their noteworthy achievements in order to set a baseline of comparison for President Obama. The author even makes sure to mention such famous phrases as “Iran Hostage Crisis,” “Tear down that wall,” and “Read my lips” only to dramatically drive home the importance of a presidential legacy.

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.

President Obama, like all Presidents before him, delivered a farewell address to the United States on January 20, 2017. As he stepped down as President he was eloquent and it was as clear as ever that he is a master of oration. Obama will go down in history as the first Black President as well as a strong orator who had the ability to captivate an audience through his use of ethos, pathos and logos amongst other rhetorical devices. His farewell address is a perfect example of Obama’s mastery of discourse as it is chock full of oratorical devices. Obama’s message to the American people and to the rest of the world is that it is essential that we maintain a sense of what it means to have a democracy and that in order to maintain peace and

Looking back through the history of the United States, the president has always been expected to serve as a gleaming example of all the US embodies and wants to present to the rest of the world. While some men have definitely carried this heavy task better than others, some were helped or hindered by the international or domestic issues at the time. With catastrophic events like war, economic crisis, or even assassination altering many American’s view of past presidents, it becomes evident that some received these tasks as an advantage while others were carried down by their negative effects. To clarify, examining the most adored and despised of presidents brings to light a number of significant details that helped to propel them to fame or

Being the leader of the free world is an accomplishment that citizens of the United States see as job with a vast amount of responsibility. Along with the responsibility comes great scrutiny. Presidents have come and gone, leaving a legacy that either creates a lasting memory of great leadership, or leaves a bad taste in the mouth of American voters. Leading the way in the land of the free is judged by three points: how the president chose to conduct themselves during controversial times, critical situations, and most importantly how they plan to help the citizens of the United States.

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.

President Ronald Reagan faced issues similar to what Obama is facing now; however, Reagan handled them more professionally and with more success. Obama is going about solving the United States’ issues poorly; he should be using methods similar to Reagan’s instead. Ronald Reagan was able to bring an end to the Cold War with tough negotiations and stand his ground for what he believed was right. Obama is faced with a war against ISIS and if he doesn't start taking actions to help protect the U.S., like keeping terrorists from entering the U.S., we could be faced with majors problems. When Reagan was president 35 years years ago, he was faced with harsh economic and foreign issues, primarily because of the Cold War. The United States’ current president, Barack Obama, faces similar issues regarding the economy and disputes with foreign countries. However, Reagan was more superior and

Because of their positions in the government and their resulting influential abilities, presidents are either praised for advancing the nation, criticized for not doing anything to help the country, or even making the country’s situation worse. Their success as president is dependent on the success of the country. People don’t take into consideration the attempts presidents make, but only those things that help or hurt the country. This leaves room for there to be a good president who may not accomplish much and a bad president who may accomplish a lot.

Barack Obama uses legitimate power. Legitimate power is based on the user’s position, power, given by the organization. (Lussier and Achua, 2013, p.150). Barack is an effective leader. As long as he isn’t breaking the law, he can have executive agencies to do anything he wants. Of course he is aware of congress being able to remove him if he abuses his power. Barack Obama is quite powerful. He has the ability to veto bills congress sends him. He also designates a large number of powerful positions. Individual who the president chooses is almost always approved. He can also fire a lot of these appointed officials, again giving him power over how these departments are run. He is Commander of the military, so he can move military resources around