Conclusion

The American Presidency.  What is it?  I regret to say that I cannot give an adequate definition.  This is what I can tell you:

1)      The presidency cannot be put in a box.  Due to the nature of the world and changes in situations, it will always have to mold itself to the present while still looking back into the past.

2)      I don’t want to have this job.  No matter if you agree with the president or not, it takes a strong person to hold this office.  The president has to make decisions that cost lives.  He sometimes has to impose a idea that he may or may not agree with.  The insecurities of making decisions that will affect the lives of so many is not something that is easy to swallow.

3)      Although the president does not always make the right choice, it is my firm belief and hope that they make decisions that they believe is the best answer to the problem.  I honestly do not think that the president is trying to ruin our country or defy our moral and political integrity.

Concluding the class, these are the things that have impacted me the most.  I am glad to have gained a new perspective o the office ad anticipate furthering my knowledge on the presidency.

What would the founders say?

For the first half, let’s pretend they would completely disapprove.  Well, let’s begin with Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Can you imagine a president any more opposite to the ideals of the Democratic-Republicans?  The first couple things that pops into my mind when I think of Roosevelt are power ad a long term in office.  I think in many ways Roosevelt is the closest thing to a monarch that we’ve had.  Next, let’s take a look at Lyndon B. Johnson.  The fact that he used his “Johnson treatment” to frighten politicians into agreeing with his policies is in a way scary.  If you think back on monarchical rule, the treat of imprisonment or torture is what forces many to follow the mandates of the king or queen.  Beyond this, the office of the presidency has grown into an entity beyond that explicitly listed I the founding documents.

However, on the other side of the argument, the founding fathers might be proud of these transformations of the presidency.  Events such as the Civil War, the World Wars, and the attacks of 9/1 could not have been foreseen by the founding fathers.  In these instances it is a strong and powerful president that has led us and pulled these united states through impossible times.  We still remain intact.  In many respects the president has grown to be a leading symbol, a fearless leader through ties of great difficulty ( i.e. the Great Depression_ ad moments of almost sure peril (i.e. the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Whether or not the founding fathers would approve, it is through these evolutions that we have come to the now.  It is through these expansions of power that the United States has survived and become a world power.

some thoughts about the environment

In light of the Copenhagen talks now happening, I would like to discuss issues of the environment and what we should do about it.

America needs to take a stand on environmental issues.  We need to lead the revolution.  As the world leader, and the largest economy the United States should be the first to implement new policies focused on cutting down emissions and using new green technologies.

As China and India grow industrially and economically, it is important that they consider greener options to those the U.S. used in the late 1800s.  However, it seems that the U.S., having already gone through its industrial age should also be the first to go green.  We’ve had our pollutant heyday and now we should consider being leaders in solving the issues of global warming and environmental decay.

The biggest gripe among business leaders and corporation chairs is that greener options are considerably more expensive ad in a les than desirable economy, converting to cleaner energy is not doable.  Well here’s my response.  Find a way to profit from the switch.  If there is a need for green technology, there will be a market for it, and where there’s a market, there’s money to be made.

Furthermore, the government simply needs to pony up and impose consequences on big polluters that refuse the switch.  If the government will make greener options imperative, businesses will have no choice.  This will also further technological research for cheaper green options because once again there will be a market for it and honestly, Americas like to make money.

Beware: This blog may seem extremely biased.  I’m going to talk about Abraham Lincoln, and seeing as he is my favorite of the presidents, this may get mushy.  I apologize ahead of time.  I hate mushy in general, but it can’t always be helped.  I am human after all.

This past summer I read a book about President Lincoln entitled A Team of Rivals.  Although the book talked about much of Lincoln’s life, it focused on the way I which Lincoln set up his cabinet ad his surrounding advisors so that instead of merely being influenced by those I his party, he hired those whom he thought would give the most rounded view and the best advice on a subject, even if he despised them personally.  It seems like the most obvious decision, but in most cases these decisions become muddled by the politics of the situation ad paying back those who supported you earlier.

When it comes to modern day politics, it seems that often positions are given to a president’s supporters and political allies.  I think this is unwise.  One of the biggest arguments against Obama during his presidential campaign was his lack of experience.  Although it didn’t keep him from gaining the presidency, this issue can still affect his future.  Especially considering the hard decisions President Obama will be forced to make as far as the economy and the wars I Iraq and Afghanistan, it is important that he rely on the advice of those most knowledgeable, not merely the sentiments of his party leaders.  So far, in choosing to send troops to Iraq, the president has shown that he is not opposed to following the advice from those not within his own party.  I hope this becomes a trademark of his administration.  This is ot because I love Obama, but it comes from my enthusiasm for Lincoln.  Lincoln was politically brilliant I my book and if there is one thing I have learned from this course on the presidency it is that we look back on the past to create a better future.

Are we looking at things 20/20?

Lenses: check your ideals at the door.

Identity is a huge thing for Americans.  Our identity is what separates us from every other person in the world.  Almost all of us have, or will, at one time go through what they call an identity crisis, the horror of trying to figure out what your place is in this world and where you stand on certain topics.

Many times when discussing politics and what decision politicians should make on this and that, we evoke our political identities.  Many of us are either at the awkward stage of creating our political ideologies or have done so within the last couple years since the realm of politics enticed our senses.  It is common I think to try to stick to our guns and defend our views when discussing the presidency and different elements of government.  However, does this hamper the development of a strong ideological base?

This evening Michelle spoke about looking past her religious and ideological lenses and merely looking at politics for what it is.  Each situation cannot be solved by one set of ideals.  This is evidenced by Congress.  The problems of the world cannot be solved following one set of ideals or according to one person’s agenda.  Take issues of the environment for example.  The meeting at Copenhagen has not necessarily been decisive.  In fact, the reason for world leaders to meet up is due to the fact that one set of principles cannot be effective throughout every country in the world.

So I think the greatest challenge we face today is not the issue of world hunger, but a challenge on the individual level to peep through other lenses.  It is impossible to disregard our moral fibers completely.  We’re still stuck with the eyes we’ve always had, but it could be interesting to try on some new glasses.

Next Post

IRAQ

How can the U.S. justify our war in Iraq?  I can understand the threats of weapons of mass destruction, especially in a post 9/11 America.  But as the stats stand, ten times the amount of Iraqis have died to American deaths and we are still in there.

I wonder being a nation for democracy and equality and everything that is good, how  can our involvement in Iraq be judged in a positive light?  To me, it seems that we went into war with less than an agreeable amount of support remained there until now, and the levels of destruction are less than equal.

Thinking about the ideals of just war, our actions do not coincide with those laid out by the fathers of just war.  I think that due to being the greatest military power on the globe, U.S. intervention is something that needs to be considered with gravity.  Everyone knows us to be a strong country, but do they view us as amiable or respectful of other world powers?  The balance of power is changing.  With the growing economic empires of China and India, the United States needs to get that “it” factor in order to remain powerful.  Beyond standing militarily strong, we need to be seen in roles other than the world police, perhaps in a more fraternal sense.  If the U.S. becomes necessary in the world as an advocate for human rights, for example, it is yet another thing to bring to the table.  To put it simply, the United States needs to boost its resume.

It will soon become old news if the predominant foreign action of the United States is foreign intervention and war.  We’ve had ample opportunity in places such Darfur.  It’s up to us now to :take life by the horns” or at least our future and expand our international horizons.

A Time for Compromise

Has pragmatism been thrown out for party loyalty?

If anything is for sure about the health care debate, it’s the inability for legislators to look past party loyalties and try to work with one another.  The bickering in both the House and the Senate has gone beyond passion about what is right or wrong for the country and has transformed into sometimes outlandish acts of aggression and revenge for past lack of support and bipartisan efforts.  In other words, health care is the Trojan horse being used by each side to attack the other.

Although this hasn’t been seen very prominently lately in politics, it is not the first big argument in the legislature.  Let’s go back to pre-Civil War, the triumvirate: Clay, Calhoun, and Webster.   If I’m not entirely mistaken Daniel Webster got beaten with a cane by a Senator when arguing what to do about lines dividing slave and free states.  Clay, Calhoun, and Webster debated endlessly, each pulling and compromising trying to find a way to preserve unity between the states and please their constituents.

I like to think of the health care debate in the same way.  Although health care may not be as important an issue as slavery and the preservation of the Union, it is something that stirs a fire within people.  Most people I come across either feel very strongly one way or the other, it isn’t in general a gray area issue, however gray the solution may be.

Without a fight, there could be no great victory.  I don’t know if a health care will get passed, but it is clear to me that one side will come out victorious.  This is big enough of a fight that whatever the outcome, the winning side will deserve a victory dance.  I can only hope that the outcome will come only after each representative has exhausted their cause, put up a worthy fight.

What it means to be the First Lady.

What is the role of the first lady?  Is there even a clearly defined role?  I think an obvious answer is that the first lady should be representative of American women.  I think also that she should use the “office” of first lady as an opportunity to promote and address issues that are not pressing issues of politics of the day.

One of my favorite first ladies would have to be Eleanor Roosevelt.  Her involvement in politics, especially during her husband’s terms in office was not only an asset to her husband, but transcended to women throughout the country, changing the norms of what the wives of the powerful should do.  Roosevelt was a leading figure in support for the WWII effort, raising awareness for the need for volunteers in the Red Cross and other wartime agencies.  Furthermore, Roosevelt was a leader in civil rights, advocating for the equal rights of all, especially women.

Another influential first lady was Rosalynn Carter.  Mrs. Carter was a leading figure in raising awareness for mental health issues and even sat as head of the Commission on Mental Health.  Following in her footsteps, Hilary Clinton was an advocate not only for mental health issues but especially family issues.  Mrs. Clinton promoted safe adoption and family practices.  Then, following her husband’s terms in office, Clinton began making a name for herself, by running for Senator and then later for the Democratic presidential nomination.

These three women, among others became symbols of women’s strength through their role as first lady.  Michelle Obama has ample opportunity to reach out to women and be a leading figure on social and political issues.  It will be interesting to see what she will do with the “office” of first lady and what her legacy will be.

Indecent Exposure

The impossibility of privacy: an enigma for any prominent figure in entertainment, sports, and of course politics.

The recent scandal of Tiger Woods is one of the best examples of how the media has completely gone overboard.  It is impossible to watch the news without an update about Tiger Woods’ adulterous acts.  Ok, we get it.  He cheated on his wife.  Does this really have to be exploited anymore than it already has been?   Some news channels have hourly updates on the Woods scandal.

In many ways this is disgusting behavior by our media.  As much as negative media affects people like Tiger Woods and his family, it is an even bigger issue for the political figures.  One article of news taken out of proportion can have lasting effects on a political career.

The way our media can formulate opinions and change perspectives is in some ways scary.  If there were a guarantee that everything we read in the paper or a magazine were the absolute unbiased truth would be one thing.  However, the press has transformed itself into this mind-altering entity which has the ability to spin a story in such a way as to fit the agenda of the paper, putting stories in a perspective that could be completely contrary to the truth.

So how can a president avoid overexposure?  In many ways it is out of his control.  However, perhaps he could refrain from catching the Twitter bug.  Honestly, I know you are trying to get a health care bill passed Mr. President, but honestly, I think it’s weird to get a tweet from the president.  Also, don’t get caught doing anything embarrassing or unethical.  And if you do, take a hint from the Clinton scandal and just own up to it.  As far as the rest goes, hope for the best and try to stay on good terms with the media.

One term, that’s all.

How much does the next election affect the current administration?

Well, a lot.  Here’s the deal. Right now I don’t care about the next election.  I care about the next three years. A common complaint of constituents is that decisions are often made with consideration for the upcoming election, which can be sometimes either inefficient or ineffective.

What if presidents were allowed only one term?  On the one hand, the president would be acting with the knowledge that they have only this set amount of time to accomplish their goals.  Furthermore, there would be way less distractions from the pressing matters of the world.  On the other hand, how would the presidential term in office have to change in order for the president to still have the appropriate amount of time in office?  What would have the rest of the Great Depression and WWII looked like if Roosevelt had not been elected to four terms?   Would the president’s term become longer?  How would this change and when would the change become effective?  Who gets to decide to change this? Congress?

Although I don’t foresee this happening anytime soon, it is still interesting to ponder.  I do not think that it is too radical to question the effectiveness of the executive office.  Perhaps a single, slightly longer term would allow for the president to make a considerable difference worldwide but also not overstep his stay.  Without having to please party leaders and constituents, the president would be free to act as he sees fit, crossing party lines to compromise on important issues and make well-rounded decisions.