The Shortcomings Of Trump's Presidential Position In The Government

When comparing the job performance and behavioral manners of President Donald Trump to all the men who previously held the office of the President of the United States before him, many factors must be taken into consideration. Rather than being a figure, the public can look to lead our nation instead, he has become a national embarrassment. He has failed to affect any of his campaign promises thus far and is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice and collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 Presidential election. When coupled with his atrocious conduct and complete lack of morality earns Donald Trump the title of Worst President Ever.

Donald Trump before he became the 45th president, his famous campaign motto “Make America Great Again” caught the attention of many Americans, but mostly by white Americans. Trump’s tactics made him a very clever man throughout the election, he had many techniques on how to gain the American vote. Throughout his campaign, he was attentive of the men around him. For example, Trump knew exactly what to say to get the attention of the American people. He already had in mind who he was going to pick in position for foreign policy, national security, and defense (“Donald Trump is the ultimate Machiavellian prince”). With this intention, he brought comfort to Americans, yet the people he was going to pick for these positions all have a common trait, which was all of them are specialist in the Middle East and Russia. Not only, was Trump attentive of America, yet he kept in mind how it was going to affect

However, when confidence in the government is lost due to public crises, people seek a charismatic leader. As a charismatic leader, “men do not obey him by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him” (Weber 1946, 79). Trump expresses charisma in his determination and vows to make “make great America again”, which impresses his followers. Many may find Trump to be inspiring, honest, or courageous. It’s those unique characteristics that gain him authority and is a powerful form of domination that builds a close relationship between the leader and his/her followers. Trump does not abide by norms or traditional policies, he has a personal approach in the system. His passionate emphasis on his ability to restore broken policies and America, convinces and attracts followers that believe in his infallible

It is said that individuals are value and critique by their actions and character in life. However, it is essential to understand why it is that certain individuals make certain decisions despite the outcome it may create, in this particular case, presidents. Each president has distinctive qualities and traits that make them unique when compared to previous and future presidents. No matter the time span between the 1930’s to modern time, presidents are still held to scrutiny for their success and mistakes during office. Every president of the U.S. while serving their term has had to deal with specific issues regarding poverty, war, economic, or foreign problems.

In setting their foreign policy agenda, presidents are clearly informed by their previous experiences. As Jentleson notes in The Domestic Context, this has historically come in the form of prior military service or a role in the State Department, yet both of these are far less common of modern presidents than those of the nineteenth century. In lieu of this expertise, the actions of recent presidents may be attributable to factors such as upbringing and personal characteristics. For example, the American Experience series of documentaries attests that Ronald Reagan’s oratory skills and loathing of communism can be traced back to his Hollywood career during the McCarthy era in the late 1940s. Likewise, Jimmy Carter’s humble beginnings as a

On the Inauguration Day of every president of the United States of America, the country looks to one man to govern the nation to prosperity. A great trial begins for the new president that will judge his ability to lead and manage a country. How he performs will determine the legacy he will leave behind. The imperative skill of strong leadership, particularly in times of tension and disaster, is needed in order to make smart decisions and compromises for the good of the nation. Sound leadership provided by a president gives the people of the country a figure to guide them through trying times. When analyzing presidencies, it is also important to assess the domestic accomplishments that took place during that particular president’s term(s), that is, the political, economic, and social changes pertaining to the United States that positively impacted the people and upheld the values within the constitution. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881) and George W. Bush Jr. (2001-2009), although serving as president more than a century apart, have both left legacies that transcend history. Overall, Bush has had more influence on the United States when assessing his domestic, economic, and foreign actions; however, a majority of these decisions have had a negative impact on the prosperity of the US. Hayes had more influence on minority groups, specifically African Americans and Native Americans, but the rights of these two groups were not protected. Hayes was less influential regarding

In conclusion, if one wishes to talk about the Trump administration and of the path that they had, and have, been focusing on for this year and in the future, they do not have to look too far. After all, Trump and Reagan both same strong similarities on how they are approaching the lawmaking and policymaking agenda in our government, to which is the focus of creating a stronger and more stable economy. As a result, they tend to follow the ideals of Reaganomics, in which favors tax cuts, deregulation, and increasing our military budget. However, as of now, in the first year of Trump’s presidency, it would appear as though that he is not doing that great of a job when it comes to following his ideals. While he has made some amount of progress

When we think of the presidency today, it is hard to understand how much it has change since its inception. Many of the founding fathers disagreed on the role that the executive branch should play, largely because they feared a leader with too much power. It is safe to say that if not for the persona of one man the presidency would not exist in the way that it does today but there are many other who have transformed the role of a branch that had merely a skeleton of an outline of what the office’s role should be. In the beginning it was like playing a game where we were making the rules up as we went; today it is an institution that the Founders would not recognize. To begin such a study, it is only just that we start with the man who

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.

The 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump, definitely isn’t seen as a normal or establishment president. Throughout his election process and almost a year into his term, Trump has proven he is one of the more unique presidents in American history. Because of this uniqueness, he is typically highly criticize. Though, this criticism clouds some of the reality. In fact, in his first year, a lot of his presidential accomplishments are comparable to previous modern day presidents. Therefore, through general norms and patterns to evaluate a president, Trump has shown he is extremely unique, but also fits in with the presidential normalcy.

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

The first topic that these candidates have spilled their views on would be how they would take on the trade system. Candidate Donald Trump’s views on the trade system are depicted in a seven-point plan. One, he would take the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; two, he is going to get trade experts to fight for the American workers; three, assign the secretary of commerce to uncover all issues with current trade agreements in efforts to protect the American workers; four, reestablish and negotiate terms with NAFTA; five, state that China’s currency is a manipulator; six, take action on trade cases against the Chinese and enforce the WTO; and seven, put an end to illegal activity that China partakes in and enforce action. (Hains, 2016) Trump makes it clear that if an agreement is not reached that the Unites States will walk from

Ronald Reagan, in his 1983 State of the Union address, stated that “America must be an unrelenting advocate of free trade.” While the United States’ free trade stance led it to prosper in the decades before and after Reagan’s presidency, recent protectionist rhetoric and actions by the current president, Donald Trump, have put this value to the test. Trump has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and has stated that the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) is “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in [the United States].” Although Trump claims that these trade deals would hurt the American worker, he does not fully understand the economics behind free trade; less restrictions on trade will almost always benefit all participants.

Two a decline of the state department, this meaning a shift from the current policy system to a more military version that would take out all the conflicts between parties. Three he is worried the US is stuck in it’s ways and can not change. He worries that once all these drastic decisions are made then the US will be stuck in that way and will not have the opportunity to make things right. This could mean that the US will have no influence on other countries which could lead to issues down the line. Such as the US not having allies because we are now untrustable because of our actions. These types of action are hard to reverse and need to well thought out beforehand and the Trump administration is not thinking them through.