Eisenhower vs. Kennedy

Direct Presidential Leadership It is without question that direct leadership of the President of the United States plays a pivotal role in the tone, pathway and patterns of the United States leadership and its place in the world. Of course, the much of the President's power is offset by the distributing of government power within the three branches of government.

However, there are indeed things that the President can do mostly if not entirely on their own and they have a lot of sway with other things even when they cannot act entirely unilaterally. Quite often, powerful Presidents have the backing of at least one (if not both) houses of Congress and this can make it much easier for them to behave and decide in the ways that they want. While this power can be very useful, Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used such power with varying degrees of success.

Analysis Eisenhower was a major military leader during World War II and that war represented a resounding success for the United States. In the wake of that war, Eisenhower positioned himself in the debate that occurred as a result of the rather violent way that the war ended, especially for the Japanese. Eisenhower made it a point to counteract the assertions and promises of people like Robert Taft who wanted to not intervene at all.

Taft held this view despite the fact that non-interventionism was the way things were generally done by the United States and even some people in the United Kingdom like Chamberlain. However, the conquering Nazis and the cowardly attack of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese brought the United States into the war and they, along with the other Allies and even Russia, ended it emphatically and with no mercy.

Rather than over-correct from that tactic, Eisenhower asserted that deterrence and threats could be used to keep people in line and he was able to obtain some major success with that approach in Iran, Korea and elsewhere. However, the U-2 shoot-down over Russia was a black eye for Eisenhower as it was clear, despite the theatrics, that the United States was caught red-handed (History, 2015). As for John F.

Kennedy, he also benefited from his military credentials as well as prior experience in the House and Senate, the latter of which is extremely rare for an elected President as hardly any federal Senators have been elected President. Of course, Kennedy was assassinated less than three years later but a lot happened in the meantime.

After a hard-fought victory over Richard Nixon, Kennedy was able to use a rather moderate stance, especially by today's standards, as he was rather pro-business from an economic standpoint and was a member of the National Rifle Association. He led very well when it came to that and the Space Race but he absolutely faltered when it came to things like Bay of Pigs (not to mention the ensuing Cuban Missile Crisis), his rumored (or verified) philandering with celebrities and the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr.

The results are panned or glorified when it comes.