The Relationship Between The President Of The United States ✓ Solved

The relationship between the President of the United States

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. 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.

The art of flip flopping generally 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. 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 not positive. 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.

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. 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.

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 were to cut taxes on corporations and raise middle-class taxes, yet the economy is struggling, the President could “flip flop” and leave his party’s views to appease the people. Much of this subject boils down to public opinion and how the President speaks to the people.

We are in a transition, much like how Teddy Roosevelt and FDR pioneered new technology for connecting with the people, social media is adding a whole new dynamic to this already complex system.

Paper For Above Instructions

The relationship between the President of the United States and the American party system has always been intricate, characterized by a constant balancing act between political allegiance and individual governance. This complexity arises not only from the constitutional separation of powers but also from the diverse preferences within the electorate that must be addressed to achieve a successful presidency.

One of the defining features of the American political system is the President's election by the public as opposed to being appointed by their political party. This phenomenon may offer both opportunities and challenges. For instance, a President's capacity to pivot from a previously established stance—commonly referred to as "flip-flopping"—can be perceived variously, depending largely on the motivations behind such changes and their frequency (Ruane & Cerulo, 2008). Each fluctuation in policy could carry the weight of public scrutiny and may lead to a perception of dishonesty or instability if it appears self-serving.

The historical precedent shows that Presidents who change their positions during difficult economic times—like Lincoln’s evolving views on slavery—are sometimes able to reposition their policies as necessary adjustments rather than opportunistic maneuvers (Ruane, 2008). This dynamic signifies the need for leaders to exhibit flexibility, depending on the contextual realities they face. The potential backlash from "flip-flopping" serves as a cautionary tale for contemporary leaders who must weigh public sentiment against their party line while striving to enact effective policy.

Moreover, the external environment significantly influences these dynamics. For example, proposals that appear favorable to the public may later be reevaluated in light of shifting economic landscapes or public sentiment towards certain legislative measures. Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt harnessed shifts in communication technology to establish closer connections with the populace (Grulke, 2018). They capitalized on emerging media forms to communicate reform agendas more effectively, which has only intensified with the advent of social media.

The media's role in shaping public perception of presidential policies and party alliances cannot be understated. From print to radio and now digital platforms, media serves both as a tool for advocacy and a potential weapon against leaders. The transformations seen from the era of early newspapers to today’s social media landscape have allowed Presidents to bridge gaps between diverse political factions, gaining support for their initiatives while simultaneously facing scrutiny and opposition from various parties.

The 20th and 21st centuries have witnessed an evolution of presidential communication strategies. Presidents, facing divided loyalty to both their party and the electorate, have sought to cultivate a distinct personality that resonates with the public. High-profile figures such as Bill Clinton adeptly engaged with popular culture to foster an image of relatability, contrasting starkly against periods of media backlash and reduced public trust (Pluta, 2014).

The relationship between political parties and the Oval Office remains contentious. The need for coalition-building prompts Presidents to align with opposing party factions to achieve legislative goals—a task that often requires navigating the polarized political terrain of modern America. Successful Presidents often position themselves closer to the median voter, thereby facilitating bipartisan cooperation even amidst dissent from party loyalists (Wiesehomeier & Benoit, 2009).

Equally, the ability to bypass traditional party mechanisms through direct engagement with the electorate has been exemplified through leaders like Calvin Coolidge, who sidestepped party apparatus by appealing directly to public sentiment. Through frequent press conferences and personal connections, Coolidge was able to garner support for his initiatives while navigating internal party resistance (Shogan, 2006).

In conclusion, the interplay between the President and the American party system is multifaceted and continuously evolving. As social media shapes the political dialogue and public engagement shifts, Presidents must remain agile, strategically crafting their messages and navigating party demands. The historical lessons learned from past leaders about the balance between party loyalty and the need for public approval serve as guiding principles for current and future Presidents as they confront the complexities of American governance.

References

• Grulke, E. (2018). Week 2: Models of Presidential Leadership. American Military University.
• Pluta, A. C. (2014). Presidential Politics on Tour: George Washington to Woodrow Wilson. Congress & the Presidency, 41(3).
• Ruane, J. M., & Cerulo, K. A. (2008). The Forum: Second Thoughts on Presidential Politics. Sociological Forum, 23(4), 852-860.
• Shogan, C. J. (2006). Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 9(2), 217-218.
• Wiesehomeier, N., & Benoit, K. (2009). Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition. The Journal of Politics, 71(4).
• Murnane, M. S. (2004). Selling Scientific Taxation: The Treasury Department's Campaign for Tax Reform in the 1920s. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(4).
• Murnane, M. (2009). "The Liberal Move to the Center: The Mellon Tax Plan and Coolidge's Presidency." Law & Social Inquiry, 34(2).
• Lewis, V. (2017). The President and the Parties’ Ideologies: Party Ideas about Foreign Policy since 1900. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 27-61.
• Shlaes, A. (2013). Q & A with Amity Shlaes. C-SPAN.
• Milkis, S. M., & Rhodes, J. H. (2005). George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and the “New” American Party System. Speech delivered at the American Politics Workshop, University of Virginia.