Individuals serving in PA positions also serve at the pleasure of the President. But, unlike PASs, these positions may be appointed by the President without Senate confirmation.
Noncareer SES (NC-SES)
As discussed in Chapter 1, the SES includes most of the top managerial, supervisory, and policy positions in the Executive branch. Only 10 percent of SES positions may be filled by noncareer appointees. NC-SES appointees do not require Senate confirmation and may be removed from their position at any time. NC-SES appointees must, like career SES executives, meet the executive core qualifications (ECQs) that are set by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). NC-SES appointees include individuals who are responsible for formulating, advocating, and
…show more content…
Problems also arise when Cabinet officers believe that political deals are being struck without their knowledge and involvement. White House executives view these factors as requisite to advancing the President’s broader political agenda. However, career executives often know more than political executives do as these matters are being discussed due to their network. Thus, it is unwise for political executives not to confer with the career executive corps prior to redressing others in the political hierarchy.
Dispute Resolution
The majority of White House-departmental controversies are resolved by the President’s Chief of Staff. Other disputes are collegially resolved by the respective office directors and Cabinet officers. Reaching consensus on the issues involved and soothing ruffled feathers are the key to achieving accommodation. However, on the most controversial matters, the President settles the dispute. In the event that one party cannot accept another’s point of view and be a team player, the political accountability protocol is
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 his book Hardball, Chris Matthews discusses the useful strategies for getting ahead in politics that he observed during his time working in Washington, D.C. He breaks up his observations into chapters with different lessons. Three of the most important lessons are “It's Not Who You Know; It's Who You Get to Know,” (Chapter 1) “All Politics is Local,” (Chapter 2) and “Dance With the One That Brung Ya.” (Chapter 4). These chapters illustrate how important making and keeping connections and relationships is in Washington. The “game of politics” is played by using these relationships to gain favors, votes, support, etc. According to Matthews, the people who get ahead are the ones who make and keep these important connections and relationships with other politicians and the public.
There is an intersection between career and political executives in the Federal government. As discussed in Chapter 2, career and noncareer senior executives are subject to the same executive core qualifications (ECQs) and performance criteria, even though some of them serve at the pleasure of the President. However, their respective spans of control and expectations associated with performance differ.
To evaluate any presidential candidate’s ability to fulfill the five “chief” roles of the presidency, I believe John f. Kennedy would be a great example. He is a better example on how he used those roles while he was running before he was assassinated. My purpose is to inform about the five chief roles of John F. Kennedy. The five chief roles are, chief executive, chief legislature, chief diplomat, commander-in-chief, and chief of state. First, I will inform how he fit into chief executive.
The Executive Branch, which consists of the President, Vice President, and the Cabinet has undergone a major expansion since 1789. The original Cabinet consisted of the Departments of State, War, Treasury, and the position of Attorney General, but has evolved into fifteen positions to meet the needs of the nation (Doc. A). With most new departments, one can pinpoint what sparked it’s development, such as the Department of the Navy being created during the XYZ Affair, a naval conflict between the U.S. and France. Similarly, the role of the
The depth and quality of knowledge used by policy makers can influence the effectiveness of policies. According to Milakovich and Gordon, competitive political forces constantly push elected representatives to focus on immediate political decisions, rather than on long term professional-administrative values such as efficient use of resources and increased productivity (p.431). During President Bush’ election he used certain failures of the past administration to enhance his win to presidency as the public trust in the
Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would
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.
Donald Trump, as the new elected President, is starting his huge transition. A very important part of this transition is choosing the people that are going to work with him. He has started to consider candidates for his cabinet; For example, as potential candidates for the Secretary of State, we can see John R. Bolton and Bob Corker, to mention some. Trump has no elective-office experience, the reason why the people he chooses for key jobs in the White House could have a big influence in his presidency. After meeting with President Obama on Thursday, Trump expressed the idea that he was looking forward to working with him, significant reason why Obama could have an impact in his appointments.
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 depth and quality of knowledge used by policy makers can influence the effectiveness of policies. According to Milakovich and Gordon, competitive political forces constantly push elected representatives to focus on immediate political decisions, rather than on long term professional-administrative values such as efficient use of resources and increased productivity (p.431). During President Bush’ election he used certain failures of the past administration to enhance his win to presidency as the public trust in the
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
Appointive Powers – An avenue used to strategically place people in different areas of the government that share the same political views to accomplish his or her agenda and political goals as well as a mean to build support. In additional, it is a way for powerful special interest groups to expand their influence on the governor for a favorable outcome. Thereby, creating a relationship that benefits both.
Wood and Waterman’s 1991 article on the Bureaucracy attempted to change the view on Congressional and Executive control over the many different bureaucratic agencies. There have been many different views on who controls who and to what degree that control reaches, as well as different reasoning’s for the same view. Their question was what were the “causal mechanisms” that determined to what extent congress and the presidency controlled bureaucracies, and how effective were these mechanisms? After looking at years of data and research on the subject and seeing the differing opinions on both congressional control and presidential control they began to see that first and foremost, most studies were on one or the other. Very few looked at both Congress and the Executive and how they influenced the bureaucratic agencies. Another thing that they noticed was that there are a lot of limitations when it comes to analyzing the President, because by 1991, there had only been 41 Presidents. This makes finding data on the influence of the Presidency as a whole difficult, especially when all you have is data that could have more to do with individual Presidents than it does the influence of the position in general. It also, especially when you are looking for quantitative data, is restrictive to whatever time frame you want to look at for the data. Wood and Waterman noticed that almost all of the studies that were performed, the data they used was based on terms, which could be 2-4 years
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.