Critical Thinking on the Article of Mathew Dickson - Essay Example

? Critical Thinking on Mathew Dickson’s Article Neustadt writes extensively on the revolution of the presidential system. This article by Mathew Dickson is a reflection of the teachings of Neustadt on information gathering by the presidency. However, Dickson is not limited to the theoretical perspectives of Neustadt. This is because he also analyses the information gathering process through the eyes of other theorists. On this basis, Dickson compares institutionalism, and new institutionalism theories of the presidency. According to Neustadt, the presidency is an institution, and therefore the main tenet of institutionalism is a focus on the office of the presidency, as opposed to the person occupying the office of the presidency (Dickson, 260). In as much as Dickson (278) agrees with this notion that the presidency is an institution, he doesn’t denote that there are other factors that might influence an individual who hold an office, apart from the rules that guide the operations of the presidency. These factors are the inter-personal factors of the leader, which might include their academic levels, childhood experiences, religious believes, etc. On this basis, Neustadt has some bias in his study of the presidency, by insisting that it is the rules that guide the office which affect the manner in which an individual operates. Dickson (261) recognizes the immense role that Neustadt has played in the advancement of the studies involving the presidency. This is because other scholars borrowed from the tenets of institutionalism to develop other theories of the presidency. The theory under consideration is the new institutional theory. Dickson (260) argues that due to the inefficiencies of institutionalism, other theorists developed the new institutional theory for purposes of guiding the presidency, in their attempt to collect information, for bargaining purposes. However, Dickson (287) is quick to denote that new institutional theory has failed to help the presidency in acquiring information that can be used for bargaining purposes. This is because new institutionalism has failed to develop efficient and proper channels in which the office of the presidency can follow for purposes of collecting information to use for bargaining. Dickson (260) therefore prefers older channels of presidential communication, as opposed to the newer methods of presidential control. For instance, Dickson advocates for institutionalism theory, as opposed to new institutional theories of the presidency. This is despite the failure of new institutional theory to factor in the cognitive and personality of the leader in their decision making process. However, in explaining in his points, Dickson goes back to history, and analyzes the presidency of Roosevelt, Lyndon’s presidency, etc. Dickson (266) argues that institutional theory arose out of the need of the presidency to acquire information, and use that information for bargaining purposes. Access of accurate information is a very valuable tool for any leader. The manner in which a leader acquires and disseminates information is a crucial factor on whether he or she will succeed during their presidency. Neustadt knew of the value of information, and he thus developed his ideas based on the desire to develop an efficient method in which the aides of a president can help him or her to acquire the necessary information for bargaining purposes (p. 277). This article manages to use relevant examples in articulating the various points contained in it. For example, Dickson (262) manages to explain the various bureaucratic processes that occur at white house. This is in regard to acquisition of information, and its subsequent dissemination. For example, he denotes that when Roosevelt took the office of the presidency, he managed to create an office referred to as the executive office of the presidency (Dickson, 262). This office was responsible for personnel, policy planning and budgeting. He manages to effectively compare the communication systems of different presidents, and thereafter develops a conclusion based on these comparisons, and similarities. Other presidents that that this article manages to observe their communication systems are Dwight Eisenhower, and Johnson Lyndon. In as much as this article is biased against new institutionalism, Dickson manages to explain in detail the various concepts that guide the operations of new institutionalism. New institutionalism focuses on the presidency as an institution, as well as the cognitive factors that shape the presidency. New institutionalism focuses on the rules that guide the presidency, and the surrounding environment. The presidency as an institution cannot function effectively by itself. There must be other offices that will supplement the presidency in developing policies, and acquiring the necessary information to defend those policies. These institutions include the congress, senate, judiciary, etc. Because new institutionalism focuses on the rules, as opposes to the institution of the presidency, Dickson (278) denotes that new institutionalism fails to address the manner in which the presidency can acquire information in an accurate and most effective manner. Looking at these arguments of Dickson, he only focuses on the negative attributes of new institutionalism. In my own opinion, Dickson does not identify some positive aspects of new institutionalism. This is very absurd because a reader won’t be able to judge by himself on whether the traditional methods of collecting information by a leader are superior as opposes to the new methods of collecting information. In conclusion, this article advocates for the older methods of collecting information for bargaining purposes by the presidency. On this basis, this article supports institutional theories of the presidency. However, in my own opinion, this is totally wrong. Because a system worked in the previous years, does not mean that the same system can work in the modern times. This is because communication technology evolves over a period of time. A need that is to be served at the current time, is not the same need that was there in the previous periods. If a given theory fails to succeed in the current times, it does not mean a theory developed in the yester years will work. All that a researcher needs to do is to identify a relevant theory, by building on the existing theoretical frameworks to find a solution that can improve efficiency in communication, within the presidency. Works Cited: Dickson, Mathew. "Neustadt, New Instituonalism and Presidential Decision Making: A theory and Test." Presidential Studies Quartely 35.2 (2006): 259-288. Print. Read More