The Best and Worst of Americas Presidents Throughout U.S history there have been many good presidents and also many bad presidents. I believe that presidents should be graded on how they handle the economy, foreign policy, and equal rights. From our first president to our current president those I believe are the three most important grading points. A good economy is very important because it gives people a better living by giving them job opportunities and a way for people to make money. Foreign policy is important because it has a lot to do with the trade, technology, and communications of the United States.
In the years 1829-37 president Andrew Jackson arguably increased democracy in America and therefore to an extend democratised American politics as Andrew Jackson was elected with a greater franchise than ever before which increases legitimacy, which is the basis of a democracy, together with the fact that he introduced a spoil system which also legitimised his presidency. Moreover, Andrew Jackson’s use of his federal power in fact also increased his legitimacy as he became more representative which therefore suggests that Andrew Jackson did in fact democratise the country however, on the other hand it is arguable that Andrew Jackson didn’t democratise in favour of all Americans and in fact reduced democracy for minorities such as the Indians and women. Andrew Jackson, in 1824 received a greater number of votes than any other president before his time which increased his legitimacy greatly and therefore Andrew Jackson started his term on strong democratic platform. During and after the election, Jackson pledged that he would open up the political system through a series of Constitutional amendments to increase the direct political power of the electorate. He proposed the elimination of the Electoral College and the direct popular election of the president.
There were many factors throughout the election which had an impact which I will explain below. The first factor which determined the outcome of the 2008 presidential election was the fact that Obama was backed by the elites and the wealthy, the most notable elite being Warren Buffet. These elites gave as much money as the laws enabled them to but they also gave Obama their names, a strong PR move which gave Obama the edge as people who looked up to the endorsers would then side with them. These two factors also argue that elitism outweighs pluralism in America, and that elitism was so strong, that it determined the outcome with supporters of for example Warren Buffet voting for who he endorsed. However, there is also reason to suggest that this is not the case, and that pluralism determined the outcome of the 2008 election.
Hitler would tell the country what they wanted to hear, one example was providing jobs as unemployment increased massively. He also became more popular after he led the campaign against the Young Plan; this reduced the reparations that they had to pay in 1929. All the actions that Hitler made boosted the electoral support for the Nazi party. To an even larger extent than the popularity of Hitler himself came the great depression in 1929 as a result of the Wall Street crash in the USA. The Nazi party took advantage of this in Germany, as the Weimar government weakened the Nazi party rose.
The media has had a great impact on the recent presidential elections. It is the most important and influential factor when determining who to vote for. The media has both positive and negative effects, it can make somebody look like a heroic person who is ready to lead the country no matter what happens, and it can also someone look like a babbling moron who has no clue about anything. The two main types of media that affect the election are paid advertising and news reporting. Paid advertising is when a presidential candidate pays to broadcast his message to the American people.
Taking Sides: Is Bigger Government Better Government? Introduction to American Politics, Professor J. Carter Written by Adam Raymond In “Taking Sides, Issue 3”, humanities professor Jeff Madrick surveyed the numerous government interventions in the economy since the end of World War II and concluded that they have been essential to America's growth and well being. ““Bigger government could create more jobs and more money in additional sales, and has also had a positive effect on the education system.” Madrick continues: “Better education leads to less crime, less need for special education programs, and less need for welfare.” Madrick believes that government regulation can “make economies work better...reduce corruption, monopolistic pricing...[they] can temper financial speculation which distorts the flow of capital toward inefficient uses” (p.42). “When done well, regulation keeps competition honest and free, enables customers to know and understand the products they receive, and foster new ideas” (p.43).” Madrick continues to summarize many other points, stating, “Government is needed to make some things a standard across the board”, such as public water system, railroads, and the highway system. He continues by stating the National Institute of Health has been expanded due to government backing that “accounted for high proportion of medical breakthroughs.” He further illustrates this point citing the Department of Defense, and how Federal money in the 1960s eventually helped create things like the internet.
The Falkands Factor ●Thatcher's popularity rose to 52% ● Similar to Churchill when WW2 win boosted morale ● Showed off Thatcher's leadership skills ● Restored public's faith in her Freddie Holley In conclusion the main factor in Thatcher’s 1983 victory was the ‘Falklands factor’ as it boosted her popularity which would have eventually got her more votes in the election. However, some may say that Labour weaknesses was the most important factor, some even went as far as saying that the Conservatives “won by default”. Economic Solutions ● Reduced income tax ● Inflation fell from 19% in 1979 to 5% in 1983 ● Caused rise in public spending ● Helped tackle budget deficit ● However it only affected the wealthiest people in the country and most people's Bills stayed the same or even rose ● Caused unemployment rates to rise Social Solutions ● Tough on crime ● Criminals became scared to commit crimes as punishments were severe so the streets were Much safer for the public ● Under Thatcher, prison population in Britain rose by around 1 million ● Crime rates went down ● Very high costs ( links to Economic factor) ● Pleased most of the public, but did cause riots around the country Labour Weaknesses ● “Longest suicide note in history” - a comment about Labour's manifesto ● Manifesto was poor, it included plans to: - withdraw from the EEC - renationalise BT, British
It is believed that the Second World War was actually the cause of many social reforms that were later formed, and the constituting of a welfare state. It was also due to the war that Labour was voted into power with a landslide victory, as the population believed that ‘post-war had to be better than pre-war,’ which caused people to vote for Labour in hope that they would deliver the peaceful revolution that they envisioned. However, some historians believe that the reason that Labour was so successful during their time in power is due to the achievements of the Liberals from 1906-1914. After the El Alamein battle in 1942, many people believed that Britain had a chance at winning the war and the government started to plan for a post-war social reconstruction. The most important plan made was the Beveridge Report in 1942.
Bush had a significant impact on the political leanings of Hispanics and Latinos. As a former Governor of Texas, Bush regarded this growing community as a potential source of growth for the conservative movement and the Republican Party, and he made some gains for the Republicans among the group. In the 1996 presidential election, 72% of Hispanics and Latinos backed President Bill Clinton, but in 2000 the Democratic total fell to 62%, and went down again in 2004, with Democrat John Kerry winning Hispanics 58–40 against Bush. Hispanics in the West, especially in California, were much stronger for the Democratic Party than in Texas and Florida. California Latinos voted 63–32 for Kerry in 2004, and both Arizona and New Mexico Latinos by a smaller 56–43 margin; but Texas Latinos were split nearly evenly, favoring Kerry 50–49, and Florida Latinos (mostly being Cuban American) backed Bush, by a 54–45
This leads to those businesses expanding due to more demand, and if more people are spending money the currency will become healthier, meaning a better UK economy. This is why I believe the Olympics benefitted the UK economy. However the UK's national debt is currently $1.04 trillion, or 66 per cent of total GDP. The estimated cost of hosting the Olympics is $9.3 billion. So even if the current status of the UK’s economy is a recession the government decides that hosting the Olympics would save the UK’s economy and save them from the recession.