The consequences behind an American presidency is largely determined by the individuals who are elected to that position, not the time in which they are elected. My reasoning for this stems from the fact that the “success” of a presidency almost entirely relies on how the individuals utilize the tools at their disposal. I will briefly touch on the pro argument for this debate, which argues that the political environment is the primary factor in regard to a president’s performance, and briefly explain its importance. Then, I will rationalize my reasoning as to why it is the individuals who define the presidency, not the environment.

Touching on the importance of the political environment, it certainly does play an important factor that will help determine the success or failure of a presidency. The environment sets up the foundation for which the president will act on. If it is a time of extreme political turmoil, the president could very well have a harder time being successful, but they are not without control of the situation. To simply say that a presidency can be defined from the moment they take office is way too much of a stretch, in my opinion, and it fosters an environment where presidents are not held accountable for their actions. I also take issue with the definitions placed on the environment of American presidencies, such as Jeffersonian democracy between 1800-1828. While these eras mark a sort of political trend that dominates American politics, it does not take into account the overall complex, perhaps short term, issues that arise during one’s presidency. Such issues are almost entirely in the control of the president. But in order for the president to be successful, they must take the proper individual steps that lead to it. While I do believe individual skill and leadership capabilities are key factors that will help define success, not having those skills will almost certainly doom a presidency. Taking the example of dysfunctional and deficient presidents that Paul highlights, we can see that these individuals will have the most trouble in office regardless of the political environment. At the end of the day, it is the competency level of an individual that will define an administration’s success, as those competencies will directly contribute to the strategy of the individual who will then utilize the proper tools to achieve their goals. The political environment provides the framework for policy making, while individual competency will provide the framework to achieve strategy.

For this debate, I am taking the side of Bob Baur in his CON argument. In his argument, he claims that no one branch of government holds more power in regard to wartime function. He looks at specific case studies and also draws on historical analysis of early presidents and their views on the matter. The main reason that I agree with his analysis is that regardless of the way a president uses wartime powers, they will always be held accountable by Congress. There are two main reasons that are why I believe this to be the case..

First and foremost, there are numerous historical examples of congress responding to the executive’s wartime powers that further limit the president’s power. The examples that Baur brings up in his argument are proof of the “subtle, yet tangible, ways” congress interacts and influences the president’s military action. We can also see that throughout history, there have been differing levels of dominance over wartime actions between congress and the executive. This will largely tie into my second reason, as it highlights the extremely complicated circumstance of wartime actions. You see, most times that the president utilizes wartime powers are when time is of the essence. Many instances call for immediate action and the executive has to be able to make its decision as soon as possible. If the executive is apparently abusing or usurping wartime power from congress, why does congress have the multiple tools at its disposal to hold them accountable? Lastly, individuals who believe that the executive is using its power in a way the framers did not intend need to just look at Thomas Jefferson’s presidency. Upon analyzing the framer, you can see he used unilateral military action numerous times throughout his presidency due to the circumstances. Hopefully, what I have brought up is enough to highlight the complicated relationship between the executive and congress in regard to wartime powers. It is not a simple discussion and when one really looks into it, you can see the evidence for a deeply complex relationship that changes over time. There is not one branch of government that simply overpowers the other in military affairs.

Due to my name, I am debating on the side of David A. Yalof for his pro argument. Within his argument, he brings up some very important points that I had not thought about. As a result, I can safely say that my opinion on the matter has changed, the president does have too much power when it comes to appointing federal judges. David Yalof gets to his perspective by analyzing the historical reasoning for the president’s role in regard to nominating federal judges and the role of the senate during this process. While the points he brings up are all worthwhile, I will focus more so on how the present political environment within America has allowed for the president to have too much power.

The biggest issue I have with the current political environment that creates too much power is tied directly to the Senate. The obvious problem that comes up is the ability the Senate has to suspend filibuster and as Yalof points out, this shifts more power to the president. The senate also is facing a problem when it comes to the amount of influence the president has over their political party. For the most part, the president is able to dictate the actions of his party just based on the hyper partisanship that allows for individuals in office to be easily swayed from their true opinions. Evidence for this can be easily viewed when looking at the amount of support the president’s party has had for nominees, as the overall support rate was over 99%. This fact, coupled with the demise of the filibuster, has directly contributed to an environment where the president has too much power and it’s evident that the executive does not utilize the senate for advisory purposes anymore.

Burdett Loomis and Byron E. Shafer bring up good points in their own arguments either for or against the electoral college and for this debate, I agree with Shafer, but not necessarily for the same reasons. While Shafer is concerned with the effects the EC has on partisan polarization, the reason I believe the EC is a crucial part of the American presidency is that the stakes are so high that electors are much better suited to provide better representation for the political beliefs of our country. The reasons I believe this are as follows: state culture plays a role when determining a population’s political beliefs, a direct majority vote method would lead to further polarization, and the electors truly know the importance of the election.  

Regardless of how one might feel about the way citizens vote, state culture plays a massive role in determining political partisanship and ideology (Erikson, 803). With this fact being known, if the EC was thrown in favor of a popular vote, states with massive populations and are already politically determined states, such as California, would have an overwhelming amount of votes directed towards a candidate. Thus, it would create a situation where other states feel robbed of their representation due to their population numbers. This would then create even further division among American citizens.  The electors also understand what is at stake and take proper measures to ensure they are informed about the candidates, the same cannot be said for your average voters. Voter turnout and knowledge are already a crisis and having the EC ensures that each vote is carefully considered. All this being said, the EC is the only way to ensure representation in the United States as this country grows in population.

Works Cited

https://www-jstor-org.uaf.idm.oclc.org/stable/1962677?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contentsErikson, Robert S., John P. McIver, and Gerald C. Wright. “State Political Culture and Public Opinion.” The American Political Science Review 81, no. 3 (1987): 797–813. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962677.