The Question of the Importance of Presidential Mandates - Essay Example

The Myth of Presidential Man s Presidential man according to many political experts, refer to that kind ity which the president got thanks to an electoral victory, thus effectively allowing him to implement the political objectives for which s/he has campaigned. Others scholars, in the same vein, claim that presidential mandate is equated with those untrustworthy and deceitful promises which political leaders set during elections but never keep them up. Along history, many outstanding historians, highly experienced political operators and some notable public figures offer insight into presidents given the complex and intricate aspect of the “political game” they indulged into. This paper endeavors to provide a clear definition of “the myth of presidential mandate” from the viewpoint of Robert A Dahl, the most distinguished and renowned political scientist from U.S. I shall argue that, thanks to mandates, the president’s political agenda is passed. The following questions constitute the backbone of the present paper: What impact does this have on the former U.S ex-President, George Bush social security reform in 2004 and the current one, Barrack Obama’s healthcare reform in 2009. In 1980, the Republican, Ronald Reagan, aided by a worsening economy at home and the Iran hostage crisis triumphed in the elections. The vice-president immediately hastened to notify the country that the new president’s triumph was “not simply a mandate for a change but a mandate for peace and freedom; a mandate for prosperity; a mandate for opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, sex, or creed; a mandate for leadership that is both strong and compassionate … a mandate to make government the servant of the people in the way our founding fathers intended; a mandate for hope; a mandate for hope for the fulfillment of the great dream that President-elect Reagan has worked for all his life.”1 Remarkably, such extreme jubilation and optimism on the side of the vice-president-elect was no more than an illusion since Ronald’s Reagan’s noble mandate emanated essentially from the votes given by his supporters. In an article, delivered at Harvard University in 1988, Robet A. Dahl eloquently contends that “it is much more evident, as it should have been then, that what was widely interpreted as Reagan’s mandate, not only by supporters but by opponents, was more myth than reality.”2 Robert A. Dahl delineates the presidential mandate as a “dangerous myth”. This myth relegates the president to the highest rank and to the most exalted status in the constitutional system at the expense of the congress3. Besides, “because the myth is almost employed to support deceptive, misleading and manipulative interpretation, it is harmful to the political understanding of citizens.”4 Indeed, the first man to theorize for the myth of presidential mandate was unmistakably Andrew Jackson. He was by no means“ the first American president to claim not only that the president is uniquely representative of all the people but that his election confers on him a mandate from the people in support of his policy”.5 The examples we are going to discuss later obviously denote that presidents usually make some claims basing them on a wide range of political circumstances. While presidential rhetoric was described as merely words (Edwards 2003), it has also been related to presidential power. In this sense, the president is regarded “as an immediate and direct representative of the people.”6 In his well-known message to the Congress, the U.S president Jackson makes a proposal both in the Electoral College and the House of Representatives in which he publicly declares the amendment of the Constitution to allow for the direct election of the president. “To the people,” he said, “belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate: It was never designed that their choice should, in any case, be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or by…the House of Representatives”7 The question that ought to be asked here is as follows: Do presidential campaigns endow elected presidents with “mandates” to implement their political reforms and their agendas? Regardless of whether the voter turnout is high or low, presidents invariably claim to have mandates. Some experts of the field question the very concept of mandates from the angle of constitutional coequality of both the Congress and the presidency and come to the conclusion that mandates are equated with power and control. Obviously, Robert A. Dahl objects to the concept of mandates as long as mandates presupposes, what he calls, a type of institutional partisanship that“when conflicts arise between the president and Congress, the president’s policies ought to prevail.”8 He has cleverly remarked that presidents usually have recourse to mandates in order to serve their political ends. Dahl’s concept of mandates can be applied to President George W. Bush when seeking a mandate to get the Congress consent to Social Security reform in 2004, one of America’s most popular government programs, and to Obama’s health care reform. So, while Bush has devised a plan to privatise Social Security-a proposal that has got little support and success, Obama , on the other hand, has asked for a budget laying the ground for reform of the American health care system. After his reelection in 2004, Bush interpreted the electoral outcome as a strong mandate for his policies. Thus, during his second term, he sought to promote as well as modernize social security as the primary pillar of his domestic agenda. In an interview, when asked about the numerous mistakes he has committed, Bush divulges that he believes that conducting Social Security reform plans was a mistake and he wished he had called for immigration reform instead. After winning 51% of the popular vote in his second term reelection in 2004 campaign, Bush draws on the mandate concept when he advances that he earned capital in the campaign, namely the political capital and that he was intending to spend it. He continued to make far-reaching Social Security and tax reform agenda among his top priorities in his second term of presidency. The Social Security Reform has failed due to the popularity of the program and to the fact that it is indeed very uphill to change it overnight; any attempt to do so, will therefore, meet a political opposition and lead to a mass confusion. Also, the political context into which the reform has been introduced has been so difficult and inappropriate. Lack of enthusiasm on the part of Republicans for the Bush plan also contributed somehow to the failure of the program as there was an ambivalence within his own party and this was a real threat to Bush’s chances of success. Like George Bush, the current American President, Barrack Obama has claimed a mandate in order to make new reforms on Health Care Issue. The latter was a serious debate as it has aroused much controversy inside and outside America. Admittedly, this reform, which tends to provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, has failed given the inherent lack of focus on prevention and the main cause of diseases9. Furthermore, the opposition and divisions within Obama’s own party has made the scheme a sweet daydream rather than a reality. As a matter of fact, the Obama reform plan strives to get more people into the system so that they can get medical care. The issue of a mandate is verily a stumbling block in the reform he intends to run. Republicans are opposed to a mandate; however, the Democrats are said to be divided on the issue. 15 years ago, Bill Clinton, before him, took the challenge but his try was a mere fiasco. Obama has recommended parents to insure their children since he holds the assumption that uninsured adults would never refuse to purchase health insurances if they could afford it. As a result, he evoked a National Health Insurance Exchange to function as a watchdog to make sure individual coverage is more available. Apparently, Obama’s administration ought to pay due attention to other serious problems constituting a real menace for America. Economy, war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the phenomenon of Terrorism are some of the challenges that Obama has to cope with instead of focusing his attention on health care mandate. In the light of what has been said, it seems that the Bush administration and the Bush Republicans have called forth a mythical mandate for their most debatable and controversial policies out of the 2004 Presidential Election. In the public official speeches of Bush, the widely disputed upshots of the election has made the White House immune from criticism for their ongoing failures in Iraq and Social Security10. Indeed, Andrew Jackson was the first president to have claimed a popular mandate. It is noteworthy that the upcoming presidents have dwelt on the same tradition for the simple reason that a mandate is more likely to grant them much influence in Congress and likewise enable them surmount the numerous obstacles of the constitutional separation of powers. Last but not least, we can venture that Social Security reform and Health Care reform presented respectively by George W. Bush and Barrack Obama are nothing but mythical presidential mandates not because they are far from being realized but, most importantly, because they are not ideology-free. Read More

Along with history, many outstanding historians, highly experienced political operators, and some notable public figures offer insight into presidents given the complex and intricate aspect of the “political game” they indulged into.

This paper endeavors to provide a clear definition of “the myth of presidential mandate” from the viewpoint of Robert A Dahl, the most distinguished and renowned political scientist from the U.S I shall argue that thanks to mandates, the president’s political agenda is passed. The following questions constitute the backbone of the present paper: What impact does this have on the former U.S ex-President, George Bush's social security reform in 2004 and the current one, Barrack Obama’s healthcare reform in 2009.

Also, the political context into which the reform has been introduced has been so difficult and inappropriate. Lack of enthusiasm on the part of Republicans for the Bush plan also contributed somehow to the failure of the program as there was an ambivalence within his own party and this was a real threat to Bush’s chances of success.

Like George Bush, the current American President, Barrack Obama has claimed a mandate in order to make new reforms on the Health Care Issue. The latter was a serious debate as it has aroused much controversy inside and outside America. Admittedly, this reform, which tends to provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, has failed given the inherent lack of focus on prevention and the main cause of diseases. Furthermore, the opposition and divisions within Obama’s own party have made the scheme a sweet daydream rather than a reality.

As a matter of fact, the Obama reform plan strives to get more people into the system so that they can get medical care. The issue of a mandate is verily a stumbling block in the reform he intends to run. Republicans are opposed to a mandate; however, the Democrats are said to be divided on the issue. 15 years ago, Bill Clinton, before him, took the challenge but his try was a mere fiasco. Obama has recommended parents insure their children since he holds the assumption that uninsured adults would never refuse to purchase health insurance if they could afford it. As a result, he evoked a National Health Insurance Exchange to function as a watchdog to make sure individual coverage is more available.

Apparently, Obama’s administration ought to pay due attention to other serious problems constituting a real menace for America. Economy, the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the phenomenon of Terrorism are some of the challenges that Obama has to cope with instead of focusing his attention on health care mandate.

In the light of what has been said, it seems that the Bush administration and the Bush Republicans have called forth a mythical mandate for their most debatable and controversial policies out of the 2004 Presidential Election. In the public official speeches of Bush, the widely disputed upshots of the election have made the White House immune from criticism for their ongoing failures in Iraq and Social Security.

Indeed, Andrew Jackson was the first president to have claimed a popular mandate. It is noteworthy that the upcoming presidents have dwelt on the same tradition for the simple reason that a mandate is more likely to grant them much influence in Congress and likewise enable them to surmount the numerous obstacles of the constitutional separation of powers. Last but not least, we can venture that Social Security reform and Health Care reform presented respectively by George W. Bush and Barrack Obama are nothing but mythical presidential mandates not because they are far from being realized but, most importantly, because they are not ideology-free.

 

 

Read More