Article Review On The President Of The United States

Walles, Malcom. (1992). Understanding the US Presidency. Journal of American Studies, 26(3),
p460-461
The United States of America were founded in response to the constant and unending rule of English monarchs that could do as they pleased in order to balance their kingdom and holdings without regard for how it affected their subjects. At one point and time the colonists of the original thirteen colonies were proud to live under British rule, yet after a time, and much taxation without proper representation later, they finally decided that enough was enough. The Boston Tea Party was only one instance in which tensions between the colonists and their British rulers found themselves at odds, but it would not be the last.
The original colonies recognized that some form of order, or government, would be needed in order to stabilize the region. If there was no order, then they would soon crumble, and all that had been so hard fought and eventually won would be lost. Thus it was decided that in order to lead their country, one individual, governed and selected by his people, would rise to lead them through a process that would not be divinely inspired, but instead facilitated by the very people he would serve. (Walles, 1992) The role of a president has ever been to serve their people, no matter how the lines have been blurred throughout history.
As women were thought of as too weak and frail to lead a country in times of trouble and strife, no woman ever dared step forward to claim such authority. The presidency was and still is a male-dominated position within the country, though times are changing. Perhaps one day a woman will sit at the head of the oval office, thereby effecting yet another change to the office over its long and storied history.
Menendez, Albert J. (1988). Religion and The US Presidency: A Bibliography. The Journal of

American History, 74(4), p1431

No man shall be defined solely by the religion and practices that he keeps nor by the culture that he exhibits as a part of his personal beliefs. The president of the United States of America is above no man, but is held to greater standards than most given that his position is one of such vital importance. The man is not what matters, nor are his religious beliefs. The position of president, the office and responsibilities, transcend the individual and thus, the faith of that individual.
In short, despite religious practices and beliefs the presidency is not allowed to be used as a podium for said beliefs nor affect the overall judgment of the individual in any way. While it is naïve to think that religion does not play a practice upon the heart and minds of every last person, it is vital to the stability of the country that those in charge of running it are not swayed by religious beliefs alone, despite that we are a nation under God. The inclusion of religion into the presidency is a matter of personal beliefs that, while not unconstitutional, must be held in reserve when making decisions of state and of great import to the nation at large. (Menendez, 1988)
Were a president to allow religion to sway their decision then civil liberties and rights would be in great danger of being violated, as the USA is a nation of tolerance in turn cannot be allowed to show intolerance towards any regarding their faith. Not only would it begin the downward march towards yet another monarchy, it would strip the nation of the very freedom that it fights for on many fronts. Despite personal beliefs the president of the United States must be impartial in matters of religion, and place their personal beliefs aside.
Neustadt, Richard E. (2001). The Weakening White House. British Journal of Political Science,

31(1), p1-11

For the past three decades the power within the White House has been on the decline. (Neustadt, 2001) At this point it is likely weaker than at any other time in history. Certain powers have been trimmed to almost nothing, Congress has all but taken over, asserting themselves in such a manner that it is no doubt who truly runs the country, rather than who is seen.
The effectiveness of the president’s speeches, addresses, and other communications to his people are on the wane, as many within the US do not even bother to watch or, for that matter, turn in their televisions or tune their radios to what might be words of import. Issues of overstaffing have left the White House looking more like a crowded frat house than a respectable place in which our nation’s leaders gather to decide the fate of the country. In short, the presidency is in trouble, and shows no signs of reviving itself anytime soon.
For all that was fought for, all that was gained, it is saddening as an American to see that the office that was so highly decorated and regarded at one time is little better than a placeholder in history, a revolving door through which candidates may simply pass rather than being truly vetted and even made to appear worthy of the office. The mere fact that Congress hold such sway within its place in government standings shows that the country needs a strong, forthright individual to step forward, to bring back the balance to the presidency that has been lacking for far too long.
The country needs a strong, forthright leader, not another face to be forgotten. The president must be the strong oak amidst the field, not the weak reed in the marsh. (Neustadt, 2001)
Jacobson, Gary C. (2015). How Presidents Shape Their Party's Reputation and Prospects: New Evidence. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(1), p1-28
The president is the face of the country they serve, the voice of the people, and the representative of the USA. Where power might fail within the White House and amidst Congress, popularity, competence, ideological beliefs, and overall attractiveness of their party is where their greatest influence lies. (Jacobson, 2015) While not beloved by an entire country, a president strives to not only do the right thing for the people at large, but also to gain further favor for his party within the halls of Congress and amidst society.
There is no greater opinion in this country than the people who are tasked to run it, those who vote upon the president and expect their voices to be heard. It therefore falls to the president, the elected president no less, to listen to his people and not just those who are closest to his ear. Should an elected official, meaning the president, ignore the voices of those who helped to put him in office it will be at his own political peril, for it will be to ignore the very individuals that he is tasked with serving. While it is by no means easy to run a country, especially one in which the most powerful man cannot possibly meet each and every one of his supporters, it is still necessary to hear their collective voice and take into consideration their needs.
The presidency is greater than any one man, and more important than the glam and hype that goes into making a president and insuring that their supporting party will continue to hold office and influence the sway of Congress and in effect the country. To be truly effective the president must listen not only to his advisors and cabinet, but to those who elected each and every official within Washington at one point or another. There is little effort needed to listen, but far more expended when the presidency is concerned about its image.
Nawara, Steven P. (2015). Who Is Responsible, the Incumbent or the Former President? Motivated Reasoning in Responsibility Attributions. Presidential Studies Quarterly,

45(1), p110-131

The man at the top of the hill is an easy target. With each passing presidency it is far too simple to blame the woes and problems of the country upon the man who is passing from office, and even easier to place them upon the shoulders of the new president. It is a practice older than the presidency itself, and one that typical to the position. Those who look to a leader to solve their problems will always look to another, no matter if they believe the individual is a better choice or not. Blame has to land somewhere, and as the ruler of the free world, the president is likely always the man who will carry the greatest burden of the blame, and yet little of the praise when things go right.
The citizens of the US tend to approach this “in a partisan manner” (Nawara, 2015) when deciding to lay credit or blame upon the president and his cabinet, meaning that they will respond with dogmatic, unthinking allegiance to a certain party. Within the halls of Congress it is seen most often that popularity rises slowly and falls like a stone when matters that can scarcely be controlled are encountered and unable to be contained. Throughout history the leader of the country has shouldered the blame for many of the country’s ills, not the least of which have been the numerous conflicts that America has found itself embroiled in.
Giles, Trevor-Parry; Giles, Shawn J. Parry-. (2006). The Prime-Time Presidency The West Wing
and U.S. Nationalism. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Like most facets of life the presidency has gained notoriety amongst the public in more than one way, and despite the cynicism that can be found throughout the nation concerning politicians and their supposedly self-serving ways, the efforts of the prime-time television series, The West Wing, have managed to at least help to polish the public image of those in office. While there will always be some dissidents and some questions regarding what is Hollywood glamour and what is based upon reality, The West Wing has at the very least allowed the general public into the real-life situations that government officials and the president must undergo from day to day.
Despite the millions of viewers that tuned in to the show it was undoubtedly a disappointment when it was found that Hollywood has the means to take what it wants of the truth and turn it to their own ends, invariably twisting what is true and adding the fantastical to an otherwise mundane story. (Giles, Giles, 2006) While it is a very real possibility that assassinations do occur from time to time, there is generally no more vicious agenda within Congress or the whole of White House other than the minor intrigues and dealings that go on behind closed doors. While there are clandestine meetings, talks that do not involve the public, and even a hint of deception here and there, the movies and television paint a rather glamorous and unfortunately inaccurate image of the US presidency and the many-layered politics that surround the office.
For those who watch, it is up to them to divine reality from imagination, to derive what is based upon true data rather than fantastical falsehoods. It is enticing at times to think that the government is a shadowy, secretive beast, but in truth it is not this way.
Howell, William G.; Brent, David Milton. (2013).Thinking about the Presidency The Primacy of
Power. Princeton University Press.
What is required of the presidency is a man of power, of vision, and of action. At times these virtues seem to run contradictory to one another, a mess of politics that don’t seem to mesh and clog up the otherwise needed process of democracy, equality, and decisive leadership that the president is required to display. When matters go as they should he is the one to whom at least some of the credit falls, but when the nation is in crisis or otherwise faltering the president is the one to whom millions of voices will be raised in a public outcry, demanding that something be done.
Those who founded this nation granted the president only a small number of specific powers while in office. (Howell, Brent, 2013) Over the course of the nation’s growth however many presidents have found a way to augment this authority and therefore strengthen their office in matters of what they are and are not allowed to push through. Thanks to the Constitution and its sometimes ambiguous nature, the presidency has changed in its capacity throughout the years, growing and expanding in ways that those who founded the nation obviously did not foresee.
Having already freed itself of a tyrannical ruler, America did not wish to fall under the rule of another despot, and this is how the regulation of the presidency and its restraints were first formed. The character of those in office did not prove enough to stymie the move towards absolute and unchallenged rule, but instead it was given over the opposition that arose naturally between political institutions. In order to govern the budding nation the presidency was placed atop the ruling elite, though still made to follow the rules and dictates laid down by the people, not just those in authority. America was founded to be served by its leaders, who would in turn enjoy the support of their people.
Hess, Stephen. (1995). My Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 25(4), p663-668
We all have images of the president in our own generation, ideals that we stand for and hold true to as it pertains to whomever holds sway in the White House. Within that office it is sacrosanct to the American ideal that only the most noble and devout among us should hold office that they lead the country into good, prosperous times felt by all. This image is not always upheld, but it is still a hope that many an American holds onto for the sake of wanting something better, something that makes sense.
It is a wonder that our concepts of the US presidency are shaped so readily and hold so true. (Hess, 1995). As many come to know by their late teens, idealism is not always the reality in which we live, and therefore is not always the best moral guide by which to live. While it is commendable that those who maintain their idealistic nature after a certain age continue to believe in a world where their views can still apply and be reciprocated, many come to believe in the compromise between idealism and reality. The truth of the matter is that every generation has conceptual ideas of how the presidency should progress, how the candidates that vie for the position should look, act, and even address the public.

There is your presidency and my presidency. (Hess, 1995)

Cameron, Charles M. (2002). Studying the Polarized Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly,

32(4), p647-663

As it has been surmised for many years, presidents lie at the very center of American politics. (Cameron, 2002) It is a natural position for the most powerful man in the world, and one demanded by their station alone. Yet for all that the president still represents his own party, his own supporters, and thus the polarization of the presidency is a matter that is very real and a very hotly debated issue. How one man serves the country by serving both his own supporters and those who oppose him is a quandary that has yet to be fully solved even in this current age.
At times of great duress and others when such polarization is extremely noticeable, the differing parties tend to resemble more armed camps than political entities. (Cameron, 2002) In these times it is particularly difficult for the president to gain political favor from all parties as those who are generally listened to and followed tend to lose such influence during times of great political polarization. During such moments it is more common to see the consensus draw more towards an overall majority in each party, thereby eliminating the individual voices and beliefs that are common in Congress and other areas of our political system. At these times being the president is not the most enviable of positions, but among the most vital and most important.
While it is a given that America is a nation united by common interests and beliefs, it is also beset by the conflicts those differences bring. Within a political party there is a general idea that pushes the entire group forward, but in the political scene there is always the need to reach the top in any way possible. Within a party there is grasping, dealing, and methods by which those who have little seek to gain much. The presidency is no different in that the nominated individual seeks a station greater than their own, but in comparison the president serve three masters, their party, the opposing party, and the people.

References

Cameron, Charles M. (2002). Studying the Polarized Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly,
32(4), p647-663
Giles, Trevor-Parry; Giles, Shawn J. Parry-. (2006). The Prime-Time Presidency The West Wing
and U.S. Nationalism. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Hess, Stephen. (1995). My Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 25(4), p663-668
Howell, William G.; Brent, David Milton. (2013).Thinking about the Presidency The Primacy of
Power. Princeton University Press.
Jacobson, Gary C. (2015). How Presidents Shape Their Party's Reputation and Prospects: New Evidence. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(1), p1-28
Menendez, Albert J. (1988). Religion and The US Presidency: A Bibliography. The Journal of
American History, 74(4), p1431
Nawara, Steven P. (2015). Who Is Responsible, the Incumbent or the Former President? Motivated Reasoning in Responsibility Attributions. Presidential Studies
Quarterly,45(1), p110-131
Neustadt, Richard E. (2001). The Weakening White House. British Journal of Political Science,
31(1), p1-11
Walles, Malcom. (1992). Understanding the US Presidency. Journal of American Studies, 26(3),
p460-461