Author Archives: Maggie House

PRO Skowronek

Posted on by
Reply

To say that the dynamic of how a president (or any person for that matter) functions is not influenced by the outside world dramatically decreases the understanding of that individual. When reading Skowronek, I was surprised to find myself being able to categorize the presidents that I can think of to accurately fit into his suggested categories. The way in which Skowronek thought of the four types of presidents “politics” is well elaborated and makes sense. The presidency is encompassed by an individual’s interaction with the issues of the current times, a president’s entire agenda is motivated by what needs to be done for the American people at that period of time. Our nation doesn’t stay the same with one political group that agrees all the time on everything with no conflicts. Our nation and globe is ever changing, and it must be acknowledged that these conditions can have an effect on a presidency. A period where little is happening and the United States continues as normal, doesn’t mean that the president in command at this time is better or worse than a president who had to make a nationwide decision to invade a country. An individual can heavily influence a presidency and make a presidency a good or bad one depending on what they are handed, but this does not mean that the circumstances of the time have no effect on the outcome of a presidency. There are unpredictable factors that come into play. Skowronek isn’t denying that different presidents acted greater than others, he is merely adding that circumstances play a role. The circumstances not only influence the president directly, but also influence how the people view the president’s actions. If a president of the past raised taxes and people did not like this and decided they were a bad president, but now vote for a president due to their liking of better roads from tax payer dollars, this doesn’t make the prior president worse than the current one. Skowronek is providing organization to compare and contrast the institution in a way that is fair by considering the circumstances of the nation and its influence on the presidency. 

Debate #3 Pro: The President Has Too Much Power

Posted on by
1

It is a threat to the general population that a president who doesn’t represent the entire country can nominate an individual with the power to influence laws that will support the president’s agenda. Even more so due to the life long position that a supreme court judge entails. An individual having control over generations that have completely different experiences, and therefore beliefs, is an outdated way to rule the country. The president can use the power of nominating a supreme court official as a strategic political move to gain supporters, rather than choosing an individual based on the entire country’s needs. This was displayed with president Donald Trump when he was put in a position to nominate a supreme court judge. This created tribalism within the United States, alienating the population of the country from one another. David Yalof in Pursuit of Justices discusses how presidents nominate justices with likewise political beliefs to gain influence over the entire supreme court, which is not beneficial to the health of the entire country. 

The presidential power of being able to nominate a supreme court judge was to provide checks and balances within the American government. Perhaps this worked when the framers developed the functioning of the government, however, it no longer represents the needs of the American people. Presidents are elected by term, so having the power to nominate an individual with the president’s agenda for a lifetime is wrong. People change, beliefs change, world politics change, and so should supreme court judges. The polarization and “tribalism” of current politics has allowed for the president to have too much power as when a supreme court judge is nominated, people in senate and other political figures do not want to disagree as it hurts their chance of being reelected. This must be corrected to restore checks and balances within the American government.

Debate 1- Maggie: Pro

Posted on by
5

Our country was founded with a population of around 2.5 million individuals scattered about the East coast (1). Currently, New York City alone nearly triples this population size. The 2.5 million Americans that resided in the newly established United States were of like mind. In these times there was less to be concerned with as it was predominately one demographic, white religious Americans. Not only were these individuals of the same demographic, but they were unified in the fact they had just broken free from tyranny and felt power in the way their government was run. The electoral college worked then. In the modern United States, there is too much of a discrepancy between the two parties, that allows citizens to be misrepresented if they live in a state that has large cities with vastly different beliefs than them or live in a smaller state with less electoral votes. Not everyone’s beliefs are being addressed, overlooking citizen values that never get to be represented in the federal government. If there is an overall amount of individuals who would prefer one president over the other, and the electoral college doesn’t result in the same outcome, it makes Americans lose faith in their political system. Individuals love to say that every vote matters, but with an electoral college, this proves to be false. The electoral college prevents innovation in the United States by not accounting for each and every person’s beliefs. It is outdated and either needs strong reformation in how/where the electoral college represents votes, or the popular vote should be the deciding factor. 

  1. (1) https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/07/july-fourth-celebrating-243-years-of-independence.html#:~:text=places%20and%20economy.-,The%20U.S.%20population%20was%202.5%20million%20in%201776.,Series%20B%2012%20table%20below). 

Maggie House Post 1: A Chicken Only Has One Head

Posted on by
1

I believe we have a president in the United States due to the necessary role the presidency plays in having an effective government. As the title of my post states, a chicken only has one head. In any social construct there needs to be an established leader. The president is supposed to be an embodiment of the peoples’ values and goals. We have a president in the United States of America, a democratic republic, because there needs to be an established individual to enact the will of the voters. 

The United States separated from British Rule due to the tyranny that a monarch provided. The people of the colonies lacked representation and a way to accrue wealth and power. Because of this, it was essential to the newly established United States that there were designated guidelines that prevented too much power from forming. At first, the Articles of Confederation was what was looked at as law, which did not place much power in the centralized government and placed this power in the hands of the states. Despite it being noted that the colonists seemed to benefit from a lack of centralized government, this prevented a cohesive and unified country, and it was obvious that a stronger central government was needed which led to the proposition of the Constitution. Within the Constitution, the responsibilities of the president are clearly established along with checks and balances for executive power. This is linked to learning from history by observing what happened to fallen republics when one individual/institution had far too much accumulated and unchecked power. 

A bicameral government was adapted, term limits established, and clearly confined duties were created to mitigate and prevent said power from going unchecked. With these regulations on executive power created, the positives of an executive power need to be highlighted. The presidency provides strength and unity for the American people. Not only is the president a symbol for the health of the country, but is essential for decisions to be made. It is necessary to have an ultimate yes or no person. If there was not then lots of issues would remain to be addressed or opportunities missed. 

I learned the importance of this as a high schooler living in Germany. The day after President Trump gave orders to kill Qasem Soleimani, we discussed it in the government class I was taking at the time. Through much debate it was concluded that although big decisions can cause lots of conflict and be cause for concern, it was a decision that needed to be made by one individual. It accomplished a several year goal of finding this individual that had caused a tremendous amount of harm to innocent people. 

There needs to be an established person to make necessary decisions with the pretense of there being a distinct guideline to regulate power. In America this role is fulfilled by the executive power where a president is elected to enact the choices of those who voted them into office. This individual unifies America and establishes a face and clear representative of the United States to interact with the world. These are reasons that contribute to my thoughts on why the United States of America has a president.

Introduction- Maggie House

Posted on by
Reply

Hello Everyone!

My name is Maggie, and I am in my junior year of college at UAF. I am a Natural Resource Management major with a minor of Political Science. I live in Fairbanks but am taking online courses to best fit my hectic schedule. I am the type of student who needs to see the bigger picture in order to understand the concept being presented. This fits with this class as I want to help move towards an environmentally friendly world through politics, and in order to do so it is necessary to understand how our government functions. The American Government is essential to the functioning of the globe as we know it, and who is in charge dictates the tone of actions taken in the 4-8 years that a president is in office. With this, my burning question revolves around the observation that America tends to choose presidents on the opposite ends of the political spectrum where major headway for pressing issues is never made. So, what will it take for Americans to choose a president that represents positive characteristics for both republicans and democrats in order to adequately address and make decisions on issues, and create a more unified America?