Response pol-03

10 May Response pol-03

Add ( 10 on this scince advanced 10 was paid)

Response one pol-3

The relationship between the President of the United States and the American party system is one of great complexity. Unlike a Prime Minister or Parliament style government, the President is chosen from the electoral base; rather than their own political party (Wiesehomeier, 2009). This major difference can either be a good thing or a burden for a President, depending on how they lead and utilize tools at their disposal. For example, the art of flip flopping. Generally the term has a negative connotation and is used by the media to convey an unstable or lying leader. It is normal to have leaders change their positions on subjects depending on changing variables or additional information given to them after their initial stance. The difference between being labeled a “flip flopper” is based on the frequency of changes and the basis for the change (Ruane, 2008). If the change in position was purely made to appease voters and gain the popularity to win an election, the perception from the public is generally of one that is not positive(Ruane, 2008). If the change of position is one that may be considered unpopular or away from the “base”, it may be perceived as a change of heart (Ruane, 2008). Another key component to consider is what external factors may be going on in the Country or the world that would welcome a changed mind. Meaning, if the Country is going through hard times economically, things are stale or stagnant, the public generally will welcome a change in policy or direction, it signals efforts to improve the desperate times (Ruane, 2008).

President Lincoln was known to change his mind on several major subjects, most notably his position on slavery. Although these changes President Lincoln made could easily be labeled as “flip flopping”, that is not how history portrays them or how President Lincoln thought of them; rather, they were changes necessary to secure victories (Ruane, 2008).  So again, the common thread was that the changes were not for political gains, but for the betterment of the people. At times, Presidents try to convey to the American people that their stance is for the betterment of the people and that is why they are breaking from their political party, sometimes referred to as a “maverick”. How this is perceived is based on the delivery that is given and what external circumstances are going on in the Country. Meaning, if the President’s stance and his/her party’s stance was to cut taxes on the corporations and raise middle class taxes, yet the economy is struggling, the President could “flip flop” and leave is party’s views to appease the people. As covered in our lesson this week, much of this subject boils down to public opinion and how the President speaks to the people (Grulke, 2018 ). I believe we are in a transition, much like how Teddy Roosevelt and FDR pioneered new technology for connecting to the people, social media is adding a whole new dynamic to this already complex system.

References

Grulke, Eric, “Week 2: Models of Presidential Leadership,” American Military University,

accessed January 8, 2018, https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-b208146732e9.

Ruane, Janet M., and Karen A. Cerulo. “The Forum: Second Thoughts on Presidential Politics.”

Sociological Forum 23, no. 4 (2008): 852-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40210393.

Wiesehomeier, Nina, and Kenneth Benoit. “Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition.” The Journal of

Politics 71, no. 4 (2009): 1435-447. doi:10.1017/s0022381609990193.

Response two pol-03

The concept that the relationship of the president to the American party system is difficult has been true since the beginning of our country’s history and is true today. The juxtaposition of the ideas and agendas of the parties and the president has been helpful in our democracy to keep checks and balances on power, but it has also been problematic in getting things accomplished.

No president has been immune to the fights with and against the parties, and Calvin Coolidge was not an exception.  Coolidge’s entrance into office came with tensions.  As the Vice President of the United States, Coolidge assumed the role of president at the death of Harding and inherited the distrust and divisions, even within his own Republican party, that the scandals of the Harding era wrought. His road to amicable working relations with the Congress was exceptionally difficult because he decided to keep most of Harding’s cabinet members (Shlaes 2013).

Coolidge saw the government as bloated and held a personal position of minimizing the size of government and reducing taxes as part of his tenure in office (Shogan 2006, 218).  This stance was not popular in the Progressive era among either of the political parties, and Coolidge had to craft his own way in working around the Congress to successfully implement his agenda.  To do this he positioned himself, as our required reading suggests, toward the median of the parties.

In simple Downsian terms, presidents therefore face strategic incentives to position themselves closer to the national median voter in order to garner the necessary votes.   Accountable to the electorate and not to a party as in parliamentary systems, and capable of formulating and advancing an independent policy agenda, presidents may feel that the exigencies of leadership compel them to adopt a “Burkean posture” of ignoring partisan mandates for the “good of the nation ( Wiesehomeier 2009, 1436).

One primary focus of Coolidge’s presidency was his support of the Mellon Tax Reform Act, economic reform and the reduction of the income surtaxes to 25%, but this idea saw no real opportunity for passing. “The Insurgent Republicans held the balance of power in both houses of Congress and formed an alliance with Democrats over income tax rates” (Murnane 2004, 835).  So, Coolidge used technology and public opinion to navigate the difficulties with the American party system. He deliberately bypassed “the political machine by cultivating his own personal popularity with the American people . . . Coolidge continued to reinforce his ideological message with 520 press conferences and 16 radio addresses” (Shogan 2006, 217).   At one of Coolidge’s speeches before Congress in 1923, the gallery even broke out in loud cheers for the Mellon Plan (Murnane 2009, 833). The trend of spoken popular presidential communication that was precipitated by Coolidge is one that has been pervasive in all of the twentieth and twenty-first century technological advances and in the modern presidential political machine (Pluta 2014, 339).

Coolidge recognized Mellon’s initial concepts and passion for tax reform, and allowed him, in good faith, as the Secretary of the Treasury to spearhead the battle plan for passing legislation. Therefore, Coolidge delegated many of the details for marketing of the plan to Mellon who used written media of all sorts, promoted through both corporate and public avenues, to keep the idea of tax reform in the forefront of the minds of the average American.  He ran headlines in the New York Times touting the benefits of the Mellon Plan, had menus in the Pennsylvania Railroad system’s dining cars endorse it, and had “Vaudeville theaters set up lobby telegraph booths so that messages could be sent to patrons’ congressmen in support of the Mellon Plan” (Murnane 2004, 833-843). One of Coolidge’s staunchest allies the, Saturday Evening Post, along with the Literary Digest, helped propel the support of the Mellon plan among its readers. One survey indicated that 1,479,470  out of the 2,134,000 readers of the Digest favored it (Murnane 2004, 836).

Ultimately, the plan passed, and Coolidge’s scheme for working with difficulties in Congress and his strategic competence as a president earned him a political victory in his favor.

 

 

Murnane, M. Susan (2004). “Selling Scientific Taxation: The Treasury Department’s Campaign for Tax Reform in the 1920s.” Law & Social Inquiry, Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Page: 819-856. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb01077.x

Pluta, A. C. (2014). “Presidential Politics on Tour: George Washington to Woodrow Wilson.” Congress & the Presidency, 41(3), 335-361. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1628901256?accountid=8289

Shlaes, Amity (2013). “Q & A with Amity Shlaes” (video). C-SPAN. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://www.c-span.org/video/transcript/?id=8367

Shogan, Colleen J. (2006). “Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator”. Rhetoric & Public Affairs. Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Page: 215-234. DOI: 10.1353/rap.2006.0059

Wiesehomeier, Nina and Kenneth Benoit (2009). “Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition” The Journal of Politics Vol. 71, No. 4 (Oct., 2009), pp. 1435-1447 http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381609990193

Response three pol-03

Throughout history political parties have had a major impact on the presidency, both negative and positive. They can help to elevate a president or act as major barriers to political legislation. “The party system, its growth, democratization and nationalization, acted as an important exogenous force on the presidency” (Pluta 2014, 337). This close relationship between the president and political parties has been both industrious and volatile. Acting as head of his national political party, the president must be able to juggle a personal agenda along with the demands of Congress and numerous other outside variables. The president has to generate popular support for different reforms and policies by using political ingenuity, using policy positioning and media to influence the actions of political groups. Policy positioning is key to the success of the presidency, “the presidential tendency to position himself closer to the median party suggests a built-in tendency for coalition building in presidential systems” (Wiesenhomeier and Benoit 2009, 1446). The president must try and place himself in a position between two or more parties that regularly disagree on nearly every important political decision. Presidents nearly always require the voting power of the contending party in order to achieve the goals of their agenda. There have been various instances when the president’s associated party and the majority of Congress were not one in the same, “the policy position of the median party may therefore turn into a focal point to accomplish the presidential agenda” (Wiesenhomeier and Benoit 2009, 1436). Policy positioning is very important, yet presidents that try and meet the demands of differing parties can find that switching back and forth, or “flip-flopping”, between matters of political relevance can have a negative effect on popular support. When George H. W. Bush changed his position from not implementing taxes to asking Congress for tax revenue increases, he had made a major a decision which many believe led to him losing the 1992 election (Ruane and Cerulo 2008, 853). The president may equally find in difficult when the parties themselves change political positions. Historically, the Democratic and Republican parties have changed ideologies on very important political matters: foreign policy, domestic economic policy, and national security. The 2012 Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, promoted an interventionist stance on foreign policy; yet the 2016 Republican nominee, Donald Trump, promoted isolationism and proposed to first deal with domestic issues over foreign ones (Lewis 2017, 57). One of the most important factors that impacts the relationship between the presidency and political parties is media. The use of media has evolved from newspapers to radio, to television, and finally the internet. The media has given presidents an outlet to present their positions on important political issues to the whole of the American public. During the earlier years of our nation, President Monroe and President John Tyler used the newspaper to increase their coverage and gain nationwide attention (Pluta 2014, 338). Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the radio to enter the homes of millions of Americans, presenting himself as a personable and well-articulated leader. During 1960 in a closely contested election, John F. Kennedy was a part of the very first television presentation of a presidential debate against Richard Nixon, he was poised and presented himself as a calm and collected candidate for the presidency. Donald Trump has created media uproar by presenting himself and his position through the use of the internet, much of which we are experiencing on a day to day basis. The use of media can help to bridge the gap between the president and political parties, swaying popular opinion and reforming political party’s positions. Media can have both positive and negative impacts, none of them more obvious than in the case of President Clinton. During the earlier years of his presidency, Bill Clinton used television entertainment, such as the Arsenio Hall Show, to project himself as a president that could relate a younger audience, while also increasing popularity for his political agenda. By the end of his presidency the media clearly turned against him, presenting him as a liar during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The use of media can help presidents gain popularity and press opposing parties to sway political positions, or it can be used as ammunition by these parties to create barriers for new legislation and reform policies. The difficulties between the president and the American party system stretch back to the birth of our nation, it is very clear that in order for presidents to achieve their political agenda they must build a bridge to create a positive relationship between multiple parties.   Works Cited Lewis, Verlan. “The President and the Parties’ Ideologies: Party Ideas about Foreign Policy since 1900”. Presidential Studies Quarterly 47, no. 1 (2017): 27-61. Accessed January 15, 2018. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/doi/10.1111/psq.12345/epdf. Pluta, Anne C. “Presidential Politics on Tour: George Washington to Woodrow Wilson”. Congress and the Presidency 41, no.3 (2014): 335-361. Accessed January 17, 2018. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1628901256?accountid=8289. Ruane, Janet M., and Karen A. Cerulo. “The Forum: Second Thoughts on Presidential Politics.” Sociological Forum 23, no. 4 (2008): 852-60. Accessed January 17, 2018. www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/stable/40210393. Wiesehomeier, Nina and Kenneth Benoit. “Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition.” The Journal of Politics 71, no. 4 (2009): 1435-1447. Accessed January 18, 2018. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/stable/10.1017/s0022381609990193.

< Previous ConversationNext Conversation >

Response four-pol-03

I thought that a discussion of the Two-Party System would be a good place to start with this week’s discussion.

Did you know that as of 2004 that only fifteen nations have a two-party system?  For the years 1888 through 2000 the Democrats have won thirteen presidential elections and the Republicans sixteen.  Let us now look at state level politics.  For many years the uppermost New England, North Dakota and South Dakota were heavily Republican, while the South was heavily Democratic.[1]

Elections at every level of government are structured as pluralities, meaning that the winner who receives the most votes is the winner.  So, let us talk about the electoral college.  In every state but Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a state wins  all  (bold and underline added) of the state’s electoral votes.  To have the ability to win in the presidential election, you must appeal to a broad base of people.  So, as Wilson points out, this means that to win the presidency, you need to be part of one party or another, else a minority party (not to be confused with race or gender) in other words, a third political party has no chance to win.  Ross Perot proved that.  He divided the Republican vote and gave Bill Clinton the needed avenue to win.[2]  The process we have of electing our officials is one reason that supports a two-party system.[3]  The other reason Wilson thinks we have a two-party system is that voters will cast votes for those running for office based on a particular issue and how they think that candidate will handle it.[4]

The framers set up a system with the office of president as non-partisan, so that different factions would not tear at the core of government.[5] Eventually, the office of president developed into partisan politics early on in the nineteenth century.  This was because this office was held to a standard by local and state politics and then finally to Congress and not beholden to party politics.  The parties, however, worked locally and there was seemingly a balance between state and local governments with the federal government.  Then comes the progressive movement who thought that the way to run the government was with administrators who were “trained” (my word) to run the government.  After that, FDR was able to get passed the Executive Reorganization Act of 1939, which expanded presidential power of the executive branch.  What this did was to enlarge the administrative part of the executive branch while diminishing how political parties interacted with presidents and agencies that were now run by professional administrators.  Milkis further posits that when these professional administrators enlarge their importance, and entitlements are promoted as “rights”, party politics suffers.[6]

How does party politics play out in real life during a presidential campaign? I will use myself as an example of the American party system.  How do you whittle down a group of seventeen candidates running for president to one?  The following comments are my own opinion:  Carly Fiorina was the best on budget, but could not win, so she was out for me.  I settled on Ben Carson once he threw his hat in the ring.  The unfortunate thing was that he was so mild, a true gentleman and statesman, and that is what eventually took him out.  Once Mr. Carson was out, the next most conservative was Ted Cruz.  He blew himself out with some of his actions.  That left Trump for me.  I speak for so many who are tired of working hard for someone to get elected that will represent our views and that we think is not part of the “party elite” (my words).  Once they get to Washington, they do the opposite of what they campaigned on.  Let me give you an example: I met Marco Rubio early on, in person, when he was not known. I thought to myself, he is a young JFK…articulate and well spoken.  He ran as a conservative and what did he do when he got into office?  He voted like a liberal, a big government Republican or an elite.  This happe4ned over and over and the grassroots was just plain tired of it.  That is where the Tea Party came from.

Over the years, the RNC, many times, has  refused  to help conservative candidates, ignored them, or would not even give them money to run a campaign.  So, when Trump came along and stood up to the RNC  and  the party elites, that lit a fire under all of us in the grassroots to support a candidate who was not afraid to speak up to them.  That is party politics in a nutshell and that is why the American Party system has been difficult.

Trish

Bibliography:

Milkis, Sidney M., and Rhodes, Jesse H., “George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and the “New” American Party System,” (Speech delivered at the American Politics Workshop, University of Virginia, September 30, 2005).

Wilson, James Q. and Dilulio, John J. Jr., “American Government, Institutions and Policies”, Ninth Ed., Boston:  Houghton Mifflin, 2004, 171 – 172.