While reading the articles for this week, I really got stuck on the particular article by Peter C. Rollins entitled “Hollywood’s Presidents.” While I was reading this, I naturally kept thinking about our current President, Barak Obama, and the obvious struggle he is having both with the bi-partisan congress and within himself. In the United States, our President must be able to strike a balance between being a figure head for the country, and being an effective and progressive leader, successfully getting the two parties to compromise and enact legislature beneficial to all. We can see how when he was campaigning, he was running on phrases and rhetoric that the American people would respond positively to, as they truly did want a change after being in a war and watching the economy slip away. However, you cannot simply have the rhetoric and not back it up with a solid stance on the policies that will make that change happen.
Rollins mentions this in his article when he explains what happened in the movie, “The American President.” President Shepherd is accused of having an affair by his opponent, and at a press conference Shepherd said, “’Being president of this country is completely about character (260).’” “He comes back against his Kansas opponent with dynamic policy positions on free speech… with an economic focus rather than silly rhetoric… with an initiative on global warming… and with stiffer gun controls (260).” Although fictional, as Americans this is exactly what we want in a President. Someone who is obviously human and make mistakes just like the rest of us, but is able to triumph over any negative backlash with his ability to enact policy, supersede the divide between the parties, and lead the American people. I think President Obama set out to do so, but failed to prepare enough to endure the almost even split in congress and the backlash from Americans who are in rough economic times.
An article from the New York Times also mentions this. Although from the Opinion section, I believe this particular article explains some of what most of America is feeling right now. The article makes an interesting point about the promises of transcendence made by Obama in the campaign, but he was not expecting the fight he would be confronted with in our bi-partisanship. The question now becomes, can he back up his rhetoric with dynamic policy? Can he fight and prevail? Other questions I propose to you are after reading the Times article, do you think he can put up a successful fight? What about the way he handles foreign policy?
Also, we often see present presidents’ characters attacked, but once out of office they almost take on an ideal character. We’ve seen this countless times, starting with George Washington himself. In the clip of President Bush’s interview with Oprah he believes the same will happen to him. Do you agree? How do you think President Obama’s character will be viewed when his presidency comes to an end? How much of a role does integrity and strength of character play for you when deciding who to vote for, and why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
In this week’s blog, Michelle asks a very interesting question. She brings up the point that, “we often see present presidents’ characters attacked, but once out of office they almost take on an ideal character.” And for the most part I agree; we’ve all seen how badly many of our presidents were treated while in the White House. And yet we have also seen them able to repair their image once exiting the role of President.
ReplyDeleteIn "Hollywood Presidents." Rollins said, "there is great wisdom in seeing presidents as symbolic figures--curiously caught in time and tradition, and navigating themselves and their nation by the strength of resources and character" (252). In my opinion this thought hold true. Obama as well as past Presidents are viewed as role models and therefore will be judged on their strength to navigate through the time.
A good example of this is one we looked at in class last week. George W. Bush was highly disapproved of toward the end of his term. However, given a few months, we were able to see him re-enter the media attention by doing an interview with Oprah. This interview was intriguing and entertaining to many who even agreed to not liking him in the past. President Bush had a very positive response when it came to the audience and it was obvious he was sincere in his answers.
With this in mind, only time will tell if this will hold true with the eventual departure of President Obama from the White House. While he will always be seen as this first African American President, it will be hard to see whether people will highly respect him for the little he has done for our country.
This week’s reading in “The West Wing: The American Presidency as Television Drama” described what viewers can take away from the show and how they can relate it to current political happenings. Peter Rollins wrote, “The West Wing offers viewers glimpses into how governance works in ways that other popular culture texts have not, and uses actual former and current political figures as consultants for authenticity in telling the stories” (Rollins 5). The author makes a very good point. Although The West Wing is a television show, it offers situations that the public can try to relate current happenings to. Unlike other drama sources like gossip magazines, tabloids and talk-shows, The West Wing provides the audience with real world situations that they can use to better understand what is happening in the world. This show offers visual learners a picture explanation on how governing works and what goes on inside of politics. This show is actually very creative in a sense that it is defining governance in terms that viewers who are not as informed with current politics and happens can understand without having to do research on their own.
ReplyDeleteMichelle wrote about the role of the president in the United States. She said, “In the United States, our President must be able to strike a balance between being a figure head for the country, and being an effective and progressive leader, successfully getting the two parties to compromise and enact legislature beneficial to all.” I agree with this and believe that President Obama is currently struggling to popularly maintain this role as he is losing more and more support each day. If The West Wing was still running new episodes, I would be curious to see the portrayal of Obama’s presidency and the economic crisis.
In this weeks reading, Peter Collins wrote about "on one hand, the presidency is a national mirror, and Hollywood; recognizing that symbolic dimension of the office, has opted to focus on the character issue and to subordinate any domestic and foreign policy matters" (252). I think that this is a key factor in todays view of the President by most people. They vote/base their opinions on the President by how his character is portrayed in the media. Rather than forcing politicians to focus on the issues many voters are more than happy to just listen to attack ads from each side and then decide who they will view favorably. Michelle asks "How much of a role does integrity and strength of character play for you when deciding who to vote for, and why?", my answer to that question is that the candidates integrity and strength of character is a valid point to consider when electing someone, however it shouldn't be the overwhelmingly deciding factor. Domestic and Foreign Policy matters are much more important in the long run for public officials. However I do agree with Michelle that Obama has ran far too thin of a line between his character stances and his political policy viewpoints in a way that has left both the public uninformed as well as less likely to put value behind his rhetoric (or actual policy) in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think Michelle’s blog post is a great way to wrap up the general theme of our class. As the semester and the blog posts come to a close, it is imperative to remember what this class was about. When it comes to politics, imagine truly is everything. In both real and fictitious presidencies the need to be perfect and beloved by the American people could be overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the Peter Rollins article I too thought the bit about the film “The American President” rang true in today’s world. I was glad to see that Michelle mentioned the part that said “’Being president of this country is completely about character (260).’” As soon as I read that President Obama’s face came into my head.
Now that the chaos of midterm elections is complete, the Obama administration seriously needs to reevaluate their tactics. Democrats and Republicans alike will say that this administration did not have their priorities in order. The first two years Obama spent in office were by no means a failure; however this administration did not work on the things Americans truly wanted.
With the looming thought of being a one term President, Obama needs to spend the next two years working on issues that are of most importance to the American people. Our President’s character has flip-flopped during the first half of his tenure. Obama needs to change his character and image if he wants to be reelected in 2012.
I agree that the president’s need to have a strong political stance rather that rely on lofty rhetoric to be considered a successful President. However, unlike you, I do not believe that the American public wants a president who is “obviously human and makes mistakes”. We want our presidents to be human, yes, but to the American public, that merely means relate-able. But the public and the media are unforgiving when it comes to mistakes made while in office, especially moral lapses.
ReplyDeleteIn America, we believe that being moral is an essential part of being the president. When, in reality it has little to no effect on how the job is performed. Americans feel that the president need a “moral compass” in order to lead the country in the right direction. This idea greatly effects presidential legacies too. Take Ulysses S. Grant for example. He was one of the most notoriously corrupt presidents of all time. But because his failings were not considered as egregious as someone like Bill Clinton, history remembers him more favorably.