Analyzing the President and Political Parties

President and Political Parties

(Barack Obama)

Ironically, the New Deal reforms started with the intention of liberating the executive from the chains of partisan politics that only served the opposite purpose by weakening an already poor relationship that consequently isolated presidents from their earlier institutional support derived from their political parties (Milikis n.d.). Milikis Provides a unique portrayal on aspects of the American government and gives fresh insights into the failing trends of the party system and the process that once created a stronger and more active state at the national level. However, the same was lacking in the representation of important institutions that have the potential of choice and common deliberation. He warns as he places the matter in contemporary perspective that this is a nation in the middle of a struggle to repair its waning links between the government and the people (Milikis n.d.).

President Barrack Obama

Powerful presidency seen in the 20th and 21st century is perceived by political pundits as a threat to the growth of political parties. However, in the past quarter of a century, presidents are noted to have aligned to more partisan persuasions. They have based their hope for support in political parties. This has been true for both the electorate and the congress. They have sought more partisan control on the executive wing and have been noted for utilizing the media a lot to marshal their base more than seeking to reach out to swing voters. Although President Barrack has claimed post partnership stance in his leadership, he still remains a statistic of the developments of the last quarter of the century. He has not had much support from the republican supporters at the ballot, on Capitol Hill or even in opinion polls. His leadership and legislative agenda can be seen as a strongly democratic party orientation. Indeed, the conservative partisan press gets lots of impetus in Obama's leadership times. The president, on the other hand, is seen to woo the liberal counterparts of the press (Skinner n.d.).

As a custom, political pundits have largely viewed the powerful presidency of the 20th and 21st centuries as a great threat to strong political parties. With the help of objective media, the president is able to convince and appeal directly to the voters. This is a way of circumventing the heads of political parties. He thus seeks a non-partisan support from this strategy. The leaders are noted to be building random coalitions of support bases without respect to party rules, policies or interest. They are in charge of an executive branch of leaders that are largely non-partisan experts that are more interested in policy matters than the politics part of the game.

It can also be observed that presidents do not seem interested in the ballot races of their parties in the lower cadre elections nor even the long-term fate of these party battles (Skinner n.d.).

The perceived partisan presidents have had tremendous support from their party in Congress. Often time, they face strong almost unanimous opposition from the rival party. They have called on the leadership of their parties to deliver Capitol Hill votes. They have also been unable to enjoy the warm relationship that presidents that came earlier had with opposing parties. Examples of presidents that enjoyed support even from the opposition include Eisenhower, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson. On his part, Barrack Obama has seen little success in forging a cordial relationship with members of the Congress from the opposition; particularly members of the Republican Party. The Democrats have driven the legislative agenda on Capitol Hill (Skinner n.d.).

The distinctive modern presidency is believed to have taken root in the early part of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt are credited with this turn of events. Franklin D. Roosevelt is seen to have perfected the agenda and type of modern presidency now in the U.S.A.