Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Individualized Pluralism

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s reliance on the American public for power transformed the modern American presidency as was known. Presidents began speaking directly to the public about legislation and policies, gauging and relying on its support for guidance on how to govern. As the size of governmental institutions increased, diluting the president’s power to bargain, the president was forced to “go public” to force Congress to enact legislation (Kernell). Additionally, declining party attachments and the independence of candidates in the 20th century caused this “individualized pluralism” (Kernell). But the presence of extreme ideological polarization is apparent now more than ever. Politics are more personal now for many Americans, especially
His early policy victories relied on a declaration of “compassionate conservatism,” (Greenstein) and he was able to secure these victories with bipartisan support, such as tax cuts and education reform (Greenstein). His nostalgic bipartisan efforts represented a move to reconcile Clinton’s polarizing sex scandal by forming two-party coalitions. Furthermore, after the September 11 terrorist attack, he radiated a sense of composure and displayed impressive engagement in foreign policy, producing record-high approval ratings and a more favorable view from critics (Greenstein). But Bush’s most consequential policies included matters of national security and foreign affairs. His administration pursued a more active role in the Middle East after September 11, 2001, a role Bush cautioned against on the campaign trail (Greenstein). He began a campaign to heal the nation after the tragedy, but moved toward a controversial campaign to garner public support for the War on Terror (Greenstein). Soon after his accusation that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” was questioned, the war took a polarizing effect (Greenstein). Despite the finding that there existed no legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq, Republicans stubbornly reinforced their support for the president’s war actions. Meanwhile, many Democrats who initially
His behavior is unusual, provocative and sometimes bizarre. As during the campaign, the press frequently focuses on the absurdity of his presidency, giving less print space and airtime for the more important, consequential issues. For example, during the week of the “covfefe” tweet, it was reported the president would pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement (Colvin). Trump capitalized on the attention and distracted Americans from important issues throughout the week. The public’s focus on meaningless spectacles ultimately undermines the democracy (Miroff). Americans associate meaningless spectacles with consequential actions and group it together as just more examples of Trump’s absurdity. Americans derive meaning and symbolism from spectacles when there is none (Miroff). Democracy is ultimately undermined and confuses the public on what the president’s agenda really is (Miroff). Furthermore, the spectacle serves to distract the public from more problematic, potentially incriminating facts, such as the Russia investigation, allegations of sexual assault and financial ties producing conflicts of interest. Again, the public groups this as part of one big spectacle that is the American