Politics Then and Now - Report Example

Politics then and now It is true to that currently, the intention and purpose on presidential governing has changed over the years. The times when immense issues like Civil rights, women’s liberation, and the fate of the U.S’s big cities among other issues were keenly tackled is long gone now, asserts Kaiser (2012). He further demonstrates that unlike the previous years when the leaders were concerned in implementing the constitution, today most if not all have anchored themselves in strengthening their parties and not the country as required of them. This essay illustrates an opinion that; today’s leaders do not value the country they rule as required; instead, they are after benefiting themselves. The essay will further outline the achievement of one of the American’s forefathers’ rule, and then make comparison between Nixon and Obama (Kaiser 100). Considerably, as years and days’ advance, it is notable that the leadership linkage is growing worse each year. The US being an example, clearly portrays that those who led almost seventy years ago, were more glued to the constitution than those who came into power recently. Following the research pertaining the reign of the U.S’s political leaders from the pioneers to the current ones, it is no doubt that the performance level of each leader is declining instead of inclining. It is for this reason that Kaiser is emphasizing the fact that a number politicians served the people’s interests in their governance. These politicians include Howard Baker a republican U.S senator, Everett McKinleyn American politician under the umbrella of Republican Party; Bob dole senator representing Kansas, and George Mitchell a senator from Maine. In other words, they valued the people they were ruling the most, and that they wanted to see them enjoy the good of their land (Kaiser 83). Based on the political life of Senator George Mitchell, for instance, it is clear that he did not only pursue what could benefit him, but the entire American family. His business commitments and lawyer-ship gave him the power and ability to enter into the political realm with the aim of satisfying those he ruled. The Americans will live to remember him as a mediator of the conclusion to the hostilities that had beset Northern Ireland for a long time. He had all the chance to sit back and enjoy the authority he had been given as the senator. Nevertheless, he knew the Ireland people were is dilemma and wanted a savior. Besides, he also facilitated a handshake between Elizabeth and the former Irish republican army by the name McGuinness Martin; an occasion held in the summer of 2012.As a leader, he could not sit back and do nothing about a looming conflict. For instance, the conflict between Palestinians and Israel was a bother to him. The international committee on the same was formed, of which he chaired the meeting. It is also important to note that he tackled the steroid use by the use of professional baseball players. According to reliable sources, it is encouraging to note that he is viewed as not only brave but also a confident leader who cannot be deterred by hostile leaders of the world, the sticky wicket, or even the spoiled rich athletes (Turner 120). In the same way, Bob Dole is recognized as the most outstanding political figure of his time. He had a distinguished record of his governing. He was one of those leaders who defended liberty in its darkest hour, and then made it a gift to the future generations. His efforts were directed to the future generations and not himself. He steer his political career perfectly style and made the Americans to witness the landscape they are destroying at the present. He destined himself in overcoming the adversity, and at the same time, making it offer the best to life. Just as Kaiser suggests that the ancient politicians brought the hardships of the Americans to life, the same can be seen from the literal follow-up of the time of rule of these outstanding leaders. Considering how the world or rather the country has gone astray, from the health, technology, and the social norms, all in the name of benefiting a certain few individuals, it is true to affirm that, current leaders are not defending their people as expected. Their priority is their party, and their own selfish interests. They are totally being controlled by self-centeredness. The initial purpose of forming the Democratic Party was not as it is today. The many prominent democrats who came together with the aim of making their country democratic nation can be astonished if they came today; to find out how miserable the party is, although still titled by the name they suggested with different universal vision. The current Democratic Party has focused on their name representing more than just a symbolism. It is a complete makeover, and that you cannot anymore find democrats like John Connally an American politician, who served as 39th governor of Texas, Wayden Ron a U.S senator from Oregon, or Joe Lieberman, a senator from Connecticut. The party left them, and so it has no any bit of democracy in it says Reagan Ronald-one of the U.S presidents. Comparison between Nixon and Obama Away from the ancient reign, the technique of leadership between the current rule of Obama and the past rule of Nixon speaks thousands of words concerning their difference in leadership. The truth is that the two vary to a greater degree when it comes to the manner of which they subjected their rule. Due to some issue like self-interests, their personal background and the desire to get into power as well as the fear of retaining the same seat has contributed to their style of leadership. Obama’s rule and other initial rules experienced before Obama are not the best. The same trend is also portrayed in Nixon’s reign. It is important to note, four decades ago, experts demonstrate that Nixon was determined to create what he called an imperial presidency, which was to be a government with unilateral powers, as well as privileges. This dream could be a better one, if at all; the proposal could have gone through. However, in 2013, Obama decided to wield the same powers openly. There was no one to oppose him; therefore, his plans succeeded. For a long time as research stipulates, Obama has won the powers that were fronted by Nixon. Nevertheless, the following examples demonstrate how the two leaders exercised their authority. Warrantless surveillance Nixon had a vision of creating special court by the name (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance). However, after trying to put in use the warrantless surveillance, the reform turned to be more of a form than a substance. The court was turned into a meaningless standard, since it used to guarantee any surveillance that the government wanted. After the court siding with the fact that the potential targets of spying should have proof which they had earlier on spied before the actual filing of the lawsuit could be made, they withdrew because the Supreme Court crushed it. The crushing of this project by the Supreme Court, came from Obama, therefore, it is of no offense to say that Obama deemed the long visions pertaining security that Nixon had. Unilateral military action Another incident is the unilateral military action. Nixon was accused to have evaded the congress, in giving the authority to declare war on Cambodia (Commager 108). In the same way, Obama declared that he had sole authority to say what “war” is. However, if he called it by a different name, then it was not war even if activities portrayed it as a war. So according to Obama, he should not make any consultation in such an incident. However, Nixon valued making consultations. In that way, Obama invaded Libya. He went ahead to bomb the capital of that nation, then rendered the military unit of that nation unstable at the same time, used the American’s dollars in supporting one side. According to experts, this is not a demonstration of democracy, and that president Obama in doing this, was using force to do things as he wished. Unlike Nixon, who always relied on the decisions from the congress, Obama at times, become impatient in waiting for consultations and that he did many things with consultation notwithstanding. Killings Both leaders had a killing attitude. Nixon ordered a burglary with the effort to find evidence, which he could use against Elsberg. This was because; Ellberg gave a famed Pentagon Papers to the press, which displeased Nixon. He again later tried to imprison him. However, this is better as compared to Obama’s decisions. Obama asserted of the right to kill any of the American citizens without charge, let alone a conviction. This was based upon his sole authority. This comes from a recently leaked memo that bestows the president discretion to murder any citizen even if he lacks clear or proper evidence. In this way, Obama became more authoritative than Nixon (Cramer 20) did. Lastly, the two have enemies. In this regard, Obama has enemy lists embeded in his technological devices, so that he can sort his enemies with keywords. Unlike Nixon who had a traditional way, of getting to his enemies. Although the two had almost the same spirit in leadership, the truth is that Obama’s way of leading is a bit advanced and that he uses more of force as compared to Nixon’s. Conclusion It is pertinent to note that from the article demonstrated by Kaiser, in today’s era, politicians usually rule based on the personal benefits and the benefits of their party. They are more of a partisan oriented than government oriented. Moreover, from the comparison of the Nixon and Obama, it can be drawn that the two vary, in that the rule of Nixon was somehow better than Obama’s. They also portray a certain trend that; “the previous leaders led with more of humanity as compared to present leaders.” It is of no offense to ascertain that the country right now is messed up. Works Cited Commager, Henry Steele. Documents of American history. 7th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 2008. Print. Cramer, Richard Ben. Bob Dole. New York: Vintage Books, 2008. Print. Friedman, Thomas L.. Hot, flat, and crowded: why we need a green revolution-- and how it can renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Print. Kaiser, Robert G.. Act of Congress: how Americas essential institution works, and how it doesnt. london : engage , 2009. Print. Kaiser, Robert G.. How Republicans lost their minds, Democrats lost their souls and Washington lost its appeal.. New York: Knopf, 2009. Print. Turner, Frederick Jackson. The frontier in American history. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2010. Print. (A link to Everett Mckinley and Reagan) http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_Everett_Mckinley_Dirksen_Dies.htm http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=d000360 Ronald Reagan http://history1900s.about.com/od/ronaldreagan/p/reagan.htm Read More