Presidency

PRESIDENCY
Name:
Course:
Date:
#1 Reply at least 2x at least 150 words each time- put your comments in red so it’s easy for me to see and copy
The American Presidency grew significantly during the 20th century due to the relationship between the President, and the role of America in the world.  Though certain Presidents and certain world events had a greater effect on the growth of the Presidency than others, it is impossible to examine one without the other.  America without its President is but another country and the President is but another man without these United States.
 
Founded on the idea of limited government, an individual was needed to interact with foreign nations.  As interactions became more commonplace and more complicated, so did the role of the Presidency.  The President was also a singular individual to whom the country could look to for answers, and blame.  This is no more apparent than after the US sunk into the Great Depression.  President Roosevelt was a bold and decisive man who saw a problem and was determined to fix it.  Perhaps other man would have been less strategic with their approach, but without the Great Depression FDR would not have had a depressed country to uplift.  “His demand that Congress pass ‘the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require’ marked the emergency of the presidency as the nation’s principal agent of policy initiation.  Roosevelt’s warning that if legislature failed to act, he would seek executive power ‘as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe’ headed a quantum increase in autonomous presidential policymaking” (Greenstein, 2009, 26).  In this respect FDR did much to increase the authority and power of the Presidency.  Perhaps it is not ironic that FDR’s cousin and former President also did much to expand upon the Presidency, though this was not achieved on his own.  “The Progressive movement helped foster important changes in the presidency” (The American Presidency, 2011, 219).  President Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in expanding the role of the Presidency, but he would not have been able to do so without the Progressive movement.  In the absence of the Progressive movement it is very likely TR’s tendencies and ideas would have fallen on deaf ears.  “More than anyone else, Theodore Roosevelt changed that pattern.  Dedicated to the progressive concept of active, executive-centered government, he advocated and practiced a vigorous form of leadership that broadly extended the reach of presidential influence” (The American Presidency, 2011, 219).  President TR did much to advance interstate commerce and promoted the expansion of the railroad.  This speaks volumes to his personality and agenda, but would not be possible without the technology of the time.  The international playing field did more to advance the presidency under TR’s watch than did domestic agenda advancements.  “In foreign affairs, he believed that new conditions dictated a more decisive break with the past, without interference from Congress (The American Presidency, 2011, 229).  This was furthered even more after World Wars I and II.  As victor and a viable global threat, America was in a position dictate terms and the President was the person to so.
 
Throughout history men have been responsible for taking action and making decisive distinctions at crossroads, but without these crossroads there would be no decisions to be made.  The President has been instrumental in advancing the Presidency, but he is limited by the situations he is faced with.  In an era of global interactions and relations, the increasing significance of the role of America has the greatest affect on the growth of the Presidency.
 
 
Shawn:  Your post reads much like the Great Man theory in Leadership Studies.  This theory attributes most of history to the great men who have stepped up in times of crisis and stress.  Of course, the debate in leadership is similar in that question; there it is about events vs. men, to wit: does the event make the man or the man make the events?  You make a strong case with the examples of the Roosevelts but in the same century there was Carter and Nixon, Harding and Hoover.  So, do the weak presidents outnumber the strong ones and undermine your argument?  In not, why?New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Shawn Halsey - Week 2 " Re: Shawn Halsey - Week 2 
Shawn Halsey (Apr 20, 2014 8:48 PM) - Read by: 2
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Professor Cusick, thank you for your feedback.  I do not believe that "weak" presidents undermined the argument.  I think we are fortunate to have not experienced more world wars or more Great Depressions.  It is possible that history recalls with greater ease the actions during horrific events than it does during "boring" events.  It is often true that it is easy to forget the social advances of Kennedy, or the economic prosperity under Reagan, or many other benefits of many other great men.  Truth be told, I think I'm at a loss.  I'm not sure how to compare one presidency to another.  Harry Truman was president when World War II ended.  While that can be counted on his watch, certainly much of the strategy leading up to the conclusion goes to his predecessor.  That being said, just because there hasn't been a world war since, I'm not sure that we can compare Truman to Reagan, or Nixon.
While I believe events will shape men (regardless of their position, military leader or frontline soldier), more often than not it is a select few men that shape the event.  It is these actions that standout in history.  It is the decisive battles, and costly mistakes decided by military strategists in World War II that are recalled.  It is the high alert standings and lack of war that is recalled about the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Therefore, I do believe that when a man does something so great, he is remembered throughout history for it.  That being said, events don't always occur allowing for great actions.
It is important to note that every other president had a unique set of event that led to their being recognized. However, there are those that made great strides in the midst of their set of events that made them stand out. Comparing one to the other however can also be very tricky, given the different sets of events that dominated their time in office (Kelly 2014). FDR can be said to be one of the most influential precedents that the country has, but there also other presidents that have made their mark. Wilson for instance was also a great president, given that he came up with the women rights, the federal reserve system, the league of nations and treaty of Versailles among others. Reagan also comes as a great leader after bringing the country back to feet and preventing it from economic collapse during the second depression (Presidentsusa.net 2014). At the time he also had to contend with a congress that was democrat and working against him.
ShawnNew!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Shawn Halsey - Week 2 " Re: Shawn Halsey - Week 2 
Roger Cusick (Apr 21, 2014 8:04 PM) - Read by: 2
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Shawn:  Professor Stephen Skowronek is one of the great political theorists who has spent a good deal of time examining presidents in the context of political science and note history.  Most people look at these men through the prism of history and it makes for a difficult evaluation.  Skowronek looks at them in a comparative arrangement matching one from them from the modern era (post 1933) against one from the traditional age (pre-1933) and offers some illuminating points.  It is generally an issue based comparison so you could use the war powers and compare Lincoln and GW Bush or a partisan politician and compare Jefferson and FDR and so forth.  It is not easy to evaluate a president in real time without a careful review of all the circumstances.  Another way is to look at pairs such as Kennedy/Johnson or FDR/Truman, Nixon/Ford so that programs that went beyond their actual terms get considered.  I think you need to define strong and weak first and then apply the defined terms to the performance to be fair to all.
Comparing the president as mentioned earlier can be quite tricky given the specificity of the events surrounding the different presidents (Robbins 2014). Ideally every president had a unique set of events, however, some did more than was expected of them and concurred the moment. This means that while some of the leaders turned around the situations surrounding their terms other did the opposite. It is the latter group that would easily fall into the weak category while those that took a proactive step can be said to be strong. Hoover, who came before FDR, was one of the presidents that could be said to have been a weak president. In his time the country almost went to the ruins. Most of his ideologies also did not work and in the end he did not match the prestige of the fore runners and even those that came after him. FDR who came to the seat after made the best out of most of situations and made the country proud for his bravery and wit._____________________________________________________________________________________
# 2 Reply at least 2x at least 150 words each time- put your comments in red so it’s easy for me to see and copy
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it was apparent to the American President that changes needed to be made and as such his authority would need to be expanded upon.  There are two commonly accepted presidential leadership styles, active and passive.  The former plays a direct role in all activities weighing heavily on discussions; the latter allows for more delegation of responsibility and reduces direct involvement.  Passive presidents by nature do not greatly increase their executive power, while active presidents’ power increase naturally.  President George W. Bush adjusted his leadership style after the 9/11 attacks, thus increasing his executive power.  “He rose to the challenge of that day’s attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center and became a presidential activist” (Greenstein, 2009, 236).  As a result of his increase in direct action to ensure national security, Congress authorized more direct power to the President.  The President increased in direct involvement in many ways, including increasing the number of National Security meetings.  “One reason why Bush had improved his grasp of policy was that he had been deeply involved in deliberations.  In the month between the September 11 attacks and his October 11 news conference, Bush met with the NSC twenty-four times for discussions in which serious debate took place” (Greenstein, 2009, 243).  As a result of this Congress was did not challenge many of the actions and requests from the Bush administration, thus increasing the President’s executive authority.  “The administration also persuaded Congress to give Bush the power to use the armed forces against Iraq if he deemed it ‘necessary and appropriate’” (Greenstein, 2009, 245).  Despite the increase in authority, President Bush remained focused on the task at hand.  As such, he accepted his increase in executive power without abusing it.  Regarding the issue of who to go after for the 9/11 attacks, President Bush initially dialed back the desire to attack all al-Qaeda harborers, and instead go after those directly responsible for the recent terrorist attack.  “Secretary of State Powell disagreed, commenting that the American people would readily back action on Afghanistan but would be puzzled by an assault on a nation that appeared not to have played a part in the attacks on the United States.  Bush put a halt to the debate, saying that this was not the time to address the matter of Iraq” (Brody, 2003, 228-244).  One reason the expansion of executive power was not challenged is because after the 9/11 attacks, the country was united in a way not experienced since the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Referring to President Bush on September 14, 2001 “He was then flown to New York, where he used a bullhorn to address the rescue workers.  When members of his audience shouted that they could not hear him, he replied, ‘I can hear you.  The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!’  There was a dramatic upswing in public assessments of Bush’s job performance.  By the third week of September, his approval level had soared to 90 percent, a record high for Gallup’s presidential approval surveys” (Greenstein, 2009, 243).  When a President is trusted, he is not often questioned or challenged.
 
New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Halsey - Week 3 "Re: Halsey - Week 3 
Roger Cusick (Apr 24, 2014 11:57 PM) - Read by: 2
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Shawn: Don't you think that Guantanamo is an exhibit in this debate?  Both Bush and Obama have adopted a strategy with the detention center despite speeches, statements, critics and supporters. How, if at all, does the Guantanamo policy fit into this discussion?New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Halsey - Week 3 "Re: Halsey - Week 3 
Shawn Halsey (Apr 27, 2014 9:10 AM) - Read by: 2
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
I do agree that Guantanamo should be talked about; I guess I didn't really see that as an extension of executive authority.  Now thinking about it, I can see where it would be considered as that.  I suppose granting the President the authority to do what others do not wish can be accomplished by turning a blind eye to it.  Perhaps for those critics against Guantanamo can take refuge through a naivety.  The lack of abundant discussion and attention towards it, may inherently extend presidential authority?
Hmm, this is any interesting point.
There is a Latin expression that states that in the times of war the laws tend to be silent. While that may have been the case of bush and Obama administration, there were some critical concerns from various quarters on the powers of the president in the matter. Most of the issues raised by the activists and some of the defense lawyers revolved around the president overstepping his mandate as the commander in chief of the armed forces. In the view of most of the critics, the president should have imprisoned the terror suspect of the 911, incommunicado (Whitehouse.gov 2014). This meant that they did not have the right to redress their situation from the federal courts and at the same time they were imprisoned indefinitely and without protection. Ideally for the president to address a serious matter such as radical Islam, they would have to toe a line between being aggressive and being restrained. By detaining the prisoners without giving them the chance to defend their case, the president invoked the habeas corpus, which claims that the custodians can justify the reasons for their act of imprisoning the suspects. In this case national security was at risk and at the same time the imprisonment was contrary to the protection that is engraved in the Geneva Conventions.
ShawnNew! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Halsey - Week 3 "Re: Halsey - Week 3 
Roger Cusick (Apr 28, 2014 8:47 AM) - Read by: 2
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Shawn:  I see your point but I saw it more as a significant similarity with Bush and Obama.  They came at the problem from diametrically opposed points of view and ultimately came to the same conclusion.  Interesting issue and comments.New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8aaf5-33d3-43da-bc59-8a9b9d6ed691/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Halsey - Week 3 " Re: Halsey - Week 3 
Shawn Halsey (May 1, 2014 10:33 AM) - Read by: 2
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/e1e8a...