3,257
edits
Changes
→Presidential Leadership
Partisan politics in particular has, in the last few presidents, created difficulties for presidents to enact their agendas. Key challenges include how a president has, at least historically, often tried to be portrayed as a "national leader" for all Americans while still, in reality, act as the leader of a political party. The rhetoric given to the public often tries to combine election results with their agendas and platforms so that the winning party tries to display a form of mandate, while often in presidential politics various other factors may be at play as to why certain individuals or parties win power. Examples of this include the 2008 election, where Obama's victory was in party fueled by anti-Bush sentiment, including his own appeal, that had taken over the country. Nevertheless, this allowed Obama and the Democrats to enact a series of measures that have subsequently become highly contentious with conservatives and parts of the public.
3. Herring, P. (2006) <i>Presidential leadership: the political relations of Congress and the chief executive</i>. Library of liberal thought. New Brunswick, N.J, Transaction Publishers.
Historians have debated what the nature of the presidency was intended by the founders of the United States. Alexander Hamilton explained the presidency as a need "energy" that helped to propel the legislative branch to action. In effect, the presidency was to be the engine of government rather than government or just another branch. Since Hamilton's time, the presidency has often varied between more centralized or even weak power. Perhaps what was not envisioned in the early United States is the degree to which partisan politics would sculpt policy.
