Blog Stage 5: Why More Power In The Presidency Is A Good Thing

In the last century, the power of the executive branch in the government of the United States has increased exponentially. Within a short period of time, the power of the presidency arguably has even surpassed that of Congress. Although the Founding Fathers of the United States did not anticipate such an exponential growth in authority, the truth is, this isn’t a bad thing for the country at all.

During past events, a lot of these crises required intricate and careful decision-making. A lot of these decisions also had to be formulated and passed rather quickly, especially since the events depended on it. Whether it was mass amounts of homeless people starving in the streets, or soldiers dying by the thousands, the government cannot afford to let the representatives of Congress deliberate on such pressing matters, as it would simply take too long. Because of this, it is much better to allow the presidency to deal with these because the executive office centers on the President, which makes decision-making much easier, allowing for these issues to be resolved as quickly as possible.

Because of indecision that can occur in the Legislative Branch, not only will foreign policy be a hard subject to tackle, domestic reform policies may also be an issue. An example can be found in the early 1900s. During Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, he used his "New Deal" policy to gain a large portion of control over the government. With this, he was able to effectively control the devastation of the Great Depression within a very short period of time, and bring employment to millions of Americans. Not only was Franklin D. Roosevelt credited with pulling the United States out of economic misfortune, many also believed his leadership was crucial for the United States' victory during World War 2, and further establishing the United States as a global superpower. All of this success was from him increasing the powers of the Executive Branch in order to act swiftly and decisively, all the while avoiding potential obstacles in Congress. 

A more recent example can be the current president Barack Obama's decision to use military force against the Islamic State WITHOUT the authorization of Congress. This is good because assuming that everything we have heard about the Islamic State is true, the United States can contain a threat before it becomes too dangerous, and potentially save many lives in the process. If this were to be brought into Congress, it could take a while before a decision could be made.

Ultimately, many past presidents have been hugely successful in leading the country not only because of their wise and logical decision making, but specifically their ability to push for change in a swift and pivotal  manner.

Blog Stage Four: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, an American editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine "The Nation", criticizes the content and workings of the recent presidential debates in her article written under the Washington Post. The article she wrote was published on October 18, 2016, and is titled What if the next presidential debate actually covered critical issues?

 

Her intended audience is for those behind the operation of these presidential debates, such as the moderators, whom she believes are not asking the right questions for the presidential candidates, as well as the citizens of the United States, who she also urges to be willing to diversify the questions they ask for the presidential candidates, and not use those that everyone already knows so much about. Heuvel takes note that Chris Wallace is the next presidential debate moderator and goes on to say that it is a “fool’s errand to suggest that Wallace explore real issues rather than raking the muck over again” (par. 2), which shows that she doesn’t expect the next debate to be any different than the previous ones in terms of topic choices.

Some topics Heuvel addresses in her article that she feels should have been discussed in these recent presidential debates are things like climate change, where she quotes other sources such as the Pentagon to show that climate change poses a huge danger to not just the United States, but for the rest of the world. Another topic could be the crisis currently occurring in the Middle East, and the potential face off between the U.S. and Russia. All of these topics are ongoing issues that have existed, but as she points out, are not covered as extensively as other certain issues. Instead, silly things such as Clinton’s "damned emails" and "Trump’s predation" are discussed in its place.

I completely agree with Katrina Vanden Heuvel’s arguments in this article. After watching bits and pieces of some presidential debates, their discussions have often rotated around issues that I have heard numerous times. I also completely agree that issues such as the crisis in the Middle East must be addressed, especially if it would mean saving lives, as well as stabilizing the US's relationship with Russia. I would not want a World War 3. In regards to her argument about climate change, I did some research on this issue and I have to say that in my opinion, this is her most powerful argument. Climate change affects every single living person in the world. If the issue of climate change is left unresolved, I think the environment will be heavily devastated, different organisms can die off, and the world will be a very different place. Ultimately, like Heuvel believes, I hope that in future presidential debates they can offer a much wider range of questions for the candidates, and not stick to a limited and repetitive few.

Blog Stage 3: Substantial Commentary or Criticism #1

The article from The Washington Post titled “Obama’s hallucinatory excuses on Syria” written on October 3, 2016 by Richard Cohen talks about the failures of US policy towards the crisis in Syria, and argues that more action must be taken in order to secure and draw this issue to a close, as well as stating that Obama’s indecisiveness is the main cause of why this issue has lasted so long. It also talks a little bit about Russia’s growing influence in the region, while at the same time noting the fall in influence for the United States, and that eventually this whole issue will spiral out of control.

Richard Cohen is a American columnist for the Washington Post and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. His intended audience in this article is most likely the citizens of the United States as well as the politicians. From this argument, it is pressing those in charge to put more emphasis on this situation in Syria in order to swiftly solve the problem, as well as attempting to gain more support from the citizens. The author’s arguments primarily targets President Obama, for being “cautious to the point of timidity and prudent to the point of appearing heartless”. This statement essentially means that Obama does not do enough regarding the current crisis in Syria. Richard Cohen expertly uses empathetic statements as a means of persuading his audience, arguing that it is the duty of the United States to assert more influence for humanitarian reasons such as saving lives.

I personally find it extremely hard to pick a side in this topic, primarily due to the fact that this is in the foreign affairs department. Because of this, who knows if the media could be used to manipulate public opinion towards or against this issue (if they aren’t already)? However, if everything stated here is true, I would have to agree with Richard Cohen’s article, and that we SHOULD increase U.S. presence in Syria simply because there are already far too many deaths. While President Obama asks “Is this a situation in which inserting large numbers of U.S. troops will get us a better outcome?” and I completely agree that sending in more military might not be the way to go, there could be other ways, such as sending in more humanitarian aid for the civilians who have been caught in the crossfire. I don’t understand why people use terrible events like the one in Syria to justify and undergo a hidden agenda. Just like Cohen argues, “America does not stand by and watch innocent people get slaughtered”. I think the United States, and every other country in the world should only need one justification for interfering in events like these: to save lives and preserve our race as a whole.