Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science The Presidency and Democracy The Presidency and Democracy To evaluate the position of the president, the concept of democracy must first be considered. Most Americans simply assume that the United States is a democracy. However, before such an assumption is made it is wise to understand the common definition of the word democracy. The Random House College Dictionary defines democracy as, “Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” Does the United States fit this definition? Moreover, how does the role of the president affect the United States’ claim to democracy? From a broad perspective the United States does indeed fit the definition of a democracy. The citizens of the United States continuously chose agents to represent them in government. Of the three branches of government that the United States has all the members of two are chosen this way. However once a individual is elected to office the general public looses a good deal of its authority over that person’s actions. This abuse of the democratic system reaches as far up as the presidency. The president is supposed to be a servant to the people, exercising their wishes and fulfilling their goals. This is not always the case. After examining the actions of some of the modern presidents it is evident that the president can be a hindrance to democracy as well as a One of the most blatant, yet rarely noticed by the public, abuses of the democratic system occurs during presidential campaigns. This is when presidential candidates make promises in their campaign, that when elected to office that abandon. The reason this is so important is because campaign promises are all the public has evaluate as to that person’s intentions. Presidential candidates are elected because of issues, so if they abandon these issues they were elected under false pretenses. There are two very clear examples of this from modern elections. The first example is from the presidential election of 1964, in which the incumbent was Lydon B. Johnson. In his campaign Johnson promised American voters “that American boys would not fight Asian boys in Vietnam.” (Hargrove 116) However, once elected Johnson escalated the war with Vietnam even though public sentiment was against such action (Hargrove 123). The second example of unfulfilled campaign promises occurred in a more recent presidential campaign, the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. One of Clinton’s primary issues in this election was economic relief for the struggling middle class. Clinton proposed this relief come from a cut on the income tax rates on the middle class (Woodward 17). Another important issue during Clinton’s campaign was increasing investments, like education and infrastructure. Once elected this issue became an after thought for the Clinton administration (Reich 65). It is clear that such action undermines the control of the citizens and thus the very premise of democracy. Since the definition of democracy states that supreme power is vested in the people, then it is a violation of democracy when the president knowingly goes against the wishes of the American public. The president can not be expected to seek approval for every small thing he does while in office, but he can however respect public opinion when it quite obvious. An example of this is when Franklin D. Roosevelt started to aid Britain in its fight against Germany in the early 1940’s. The general public had made it clear that after the heavy loses of World War I, they wished to remain isolated from European affairs. Roosevelt believed however that it was in the country’s best interest to aid in some way American allies abroad. Without the knowledge of the public Roosevelt used the American navy to protect British ships in the Atlantic and to occasional thwart German activities (Hargrove 102). It has also been speculated that Roosevelt instigated the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor by refusing to trade with Japan until it stopped its military exploits in Asia (Hargrove 102). If Roosevelt’s intention was indeed to pull the United States into a war abroad, he succeeded. His actions raise the question of whether or not the president has the right to go against the public’s wishes if he deems them unwise. The realistic answer to that question is hard to discern. If the president wishes to adhere to the idea of democracy, however, the answer to that question is no. Under the democratic definition the people are the supreme power and thus their wishes most be of paramount A president can also misuse his power when he uses misinformation to accomplish his prerogatives. It is not just the public that the president can misinform, he can also exclude Congress from his activities. By doing this he is effectively shutting down the democracy. The way that must presidents use misinformation is by neglecting to tell the public certain details about the state of affairs or actions the president wishes to implement. For example, Johnson used misinformation to continue his war in Vietnam. At the time that Johnson was involving the United States in the Vietnam War he was also trying to pass much of the legislation for his Great Society (Neustadt 210). Johnson feared that his momentum would be slowed in Congress if he provided them with all the information about the military efforts in Vietnam. Johnson continued to spend troops to Vietnam but never fully acknowledged the scale of his effort to Congress Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair is also an instance in which the president did not inform the public about his actions. Reagan violated the public trust twice in this scandal. First, he continued to deal with the Contras covertly, even after Congress had declared that no American intelligence agency was allowed to do so (Hargrove 150). Then he again used covert actions to exercise his prerogatives when against United States law he bargained with terrorists to gain the release of hostages in Lebanon. While the president can get around this law by signing a waiver, he must notify the Congress which Reagan never did (Hargrove 150). This abuse of power is perhaps the worst violation of democracy because how can the people decide the course of their country if they are not informed about the president’s actions. By omitting unfavorable actions from press conferences and speeches the president is able to avoid accountability, even if it is for a short time. Without accountability the people have no control over the president and thus no control over the government. In which case the United States would stop functioning A president’s actions can help support the American democracy also. There are many cases from recent presidencies when the president has followed the wishes of the public and informed the public about important state matters, even if it was not in the president’s benefit to do so. In 1986 Reagan followed the desires of the public and passed a sweeping tax reform (Hargrove 146). This was a hard fought battle for Reagan who had to contend with the influential special interests that would be hurt by a tax cut for the general public. By supporting this tax reform Reagan was special interests and many members of Congress. He risked political and financial support in the process. Yet Reagan’s steadfastness proved that he was willing to support the American people’s goals and thus be working part of American democracy. Another example of a president working with the premises of democracy is seen in Roosevelt’s fireside chats. In 1933 when Roosevelt was instituting the Hundred Days to help America recover from the Depression he went on the radio to explain his course of action to the public (Hargrove 86). The course of action that Roosevelt was taking with the Hundred Days was radical to most Americans and Roosevelt could have hurt his approval ratings by telling the people something they did not want to hear. However, Roosevelt went on the air and told the American people the truth even if it was scary to many of them. With his message of truth was also a message of hope and his frankness inspired the people to trust him. It is a president’s duty to keep the public informed about the country and his ideas. Many times by informing the people truthfully a president can gather support for his plans. The president and the people working together is the only way for a democracy to truly exist in the United States. It is important that the president’s power be tempered by the ideals of the democracy. Whether or not the president feels that his actions are justified because of circumstances he must always consider the will of the people as his driving force. The presidency can not be evaluated with out taking into account our democratic government and likewise the democracy can not be judged without considering the role and influence Bibliography: Word Count: 1508
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests