Resources For Week Three Discussion: Presidential Leadership

Resources For Week Three Discussion Presidential Leadership And The

Review these resources: 1. Read Chapter 5 – The Presidency from the textbook "American Government". 2. Read articles from the ProQuest database: a. "Electoral College 101" (2008), b. "Why the Electoral College is bad for America" by Madonna (2005), c. "What are the arguments made in favor – and against – the Electoral College?" by Bates (2004). 3. Read one of the selected articles analyzing the Electoral College and its implications, such as the risks of its outcomes or proposals for reform. 4. Review articles critiquing or supporting Electoral College reforms, including the National Popular Vote (NPV) compact, battleground state strategies, and arguments for and against reform proposals. 5. Read resources for the defense spending topic, including Chapter 6 of the textbook, Eisenhower’s farewell speech on the military-industrial complex, watch related videos, and review articles discussing the modern military-industrial complex, iron triangles, and federal budget impacts.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The United States' presidential leadership is deeply intertwined with the electoral process, notably the Electoral College, and the defense spending associated with the military-industrial complex. Understanding these elements is essential to grasping the functioning of American political leadership and policy-making. This paper explores the complexities of presidential leadership, the role and controversies of the Electoral College, and the influence of defense spending and the military-industrial complex on national policy and budget outcomes.

Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College

The presidency in the United States embodies a blend of constitutional authority and political influence. The election process, however, is mediated by the Electoral College, a unique institution designed in the 18th century to balance popular will with state sovereignty. According to "American Government" (Chapter 5), the Electoral College system involves electors who cast votes on behalf of their states, with the winner taking all electoral votes in most states. This system has been subject to criticism, particularly because it can result in a president elected without winning the popular vote, raising questions about democratic legitimacy (Madonna, 2005).

The debate over the Electoral College revolves around its origins and relevance today. Critics argue that it distorts representation, diminishes voter influence in non-battleground states, and tends to favor certain candidates based on electoral strategy rather than voter preference (Bates, 2004). Proponents, meanwhile, maintain that it preserves federalism and encourages candidates to campaign across diverse states, preventing domination by densely populated urban centers.

Arguments For and Against Electoral College Reform

Supporters of reform, such as advocating for the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative, argue that a direct national election would better reflect the democratic will and ensure each vote carries equal weight (Wolverton, 2011). Opponents contend that such reforms could undermine federalism and complicate the electoral process, and they defend the current system as a safeguard against regional or minority interests overriding national consensus (Gizzi, 2011).

The strategic behavior of campaigns is heavily influenced by the Electoral College. Candidates tend to focus their resources on key battleground states, like Florida in recent elections, to maximize electoral votes rather than pursue a nationwide popular appeal (Strömberg, 2008). This approach narrows voter attention and distorts policy priorities, revealing systemic biases ingrained in the electoral process.

The Role of Presidential Leadership in Policy Making

Presidential leadership is also shaped by their ability to leverage public support and political opportunities. Canes-Wrone (2010) posits that successful presidents exploit existing opportunities to enact change, acting as facilitators who recognize when the political climate is conducive. Conversely, Eshbaugh-Soha (2007) discusses how presidents often externalize their influence based on public opinion polls, seeking to rally support rather than persuade uninterested legislators.

The modern president often faces limitations or opportunities determined by their political environment, as explained by Walcott (2009). Effective leadership depends on timing, context, and the ability to navigate political circumstances, challenging the myth of a universally "great" presidency and emphasizing situational leadership (Skowronek, 2009).

The Military-Industrial Complex and Defense Spending

Former President Eisenhower famously warned of the dangers posed by the military-industrial complex, emphasizing that the coalition of defense industries, military agencies, and Congress could threaten democratic accountability (Newton, 2010). This "iron triangle" influences defense policy and federal budgets, often pushing for increased military expenditure under the guise of national security (Huey-Burns, 2011).

Research indicates that the military-industrial complex sustains a cycle of defense spending that benefits specific industries and congressional districts. Nelson (1995) describes how pork-barrel projects and overcapacity in defense manufacturing lead to bloated budgets, while Marotta (2007) discusses how these interconnected interests hinder budget reform efforts. These relationships undermine efficiency and inflate costs, necessitating careful scrutiny and reform efforts.

The Impact of the Iron Triangle on Federal Budgets

The iron triangle's influence extends to the federal budget, often creating a system where defense contractors, military institutions, and congressional committees perpetuate overspending (Wolfensberger, 2009). The entrenched nature of these relationships complicates efforts to cut defense budgets or reform procurement processes (Nelson, 1995).

Conclusion

Presidential leadership and electoral processes are central to the functioning of American democracy, yet they are shaped by complex institutions like the Electoral College and influenced by entrenched interests in defense spending. While the Electoral College aims to balance federalism, its current form often undermines the principle of one person, one vote. Reform efforts face significant political challenges, yet understanding the arguments for and against such changes is vital. Similarly, the military-industrial complex exemplifies how institutional interests can distort policy and budget priorities, posing ongoing challenges to sustainable and accountable governance. Effective leadership, therefore, requires navigating these institutional complexities and advocating for reforms that enhance democratic accountability and fiscal responsibility.

References

• Bates, N. (2004, October 26). What are the arguments made in favor – and against – the Electoral College? History News Network. Retrieved from https://historynewsnetwork.org
• Gizzi, J. (2011, May 30). GOP leaders united in defense of the Electoral College. Human Events, 67(20), 5.
• Huey-Burns, C. (2011). The modern military-industrial complex. U.S. News & World Report.
• Madonna, G. T. (2005). Why the Electoral College is bad for America. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(2).
• Newton, J. (2010, December 20). Ike’s speech. The New Yorker, 86(41), 42.
• Marotta, G. (2007). The iron triangle’s impact on the federal budget. Vital Speeches of the Day, 51(4).
• Nelson, R. H. (1995). Cutting the budget with a wet noodle. Forbes.
• Skowronek, S. (2009). Presidential leadership in political times: Reprise and reappraisal. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39(2).
• Strömberg, D. (2008). How the Electoral College influences campaigns and policy: The probability of being Florida. The American Economic Review, 98(3).
• Wolverton, J. (2011). What’s wrong with the NPV? The New American, 27(18), 25-28.