Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: What can we learn about American politics from a study of the Clinton presidency?

  1. #1
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    31,856

    What can we learn about American politics from a study of the Clinton presidency?

    To say that there is a reasonable amount of information to be gained and learned from studying Bill Clinton reign as president of the USA would be a great understatement. There is a great deal that can be learned from studying his reign between his appointment and fall from power. By studying Clinton reign we can begin to determine and analyse how effective the American constitution is in restricting one individual from becoming to powerful and if it adequately fulfils its purpose. Clinton had a hugely controversial spell in office; this was partly down to the Monica Lewinski affair.

    Clinton and Al Gore represented a new generation in American political leadership; this was down to the fact that for the first time in nearly twelve years the White House and congress were both held by the same party. What was so special about Clintonís rise to power was that he was from a very poor lower class background, which was very unusual for a president of the USA as many of his predecessors came from wealthy and rich backgrounds. By coming from such a background as his Clinton showed that the constitution was effective to the extent that it allowed for people from the lower classes to become president, as the constitution states that no financial or property qualifications needed in order to become president. This would suggest to us through our study that it is possible to achieve the American dream so to speak in the way that the constitution claims to be possible.

    Article two of the American constitution states that no president can declare war on a country without the approval of congress, by acting in a way to escape this loophole Clinton showed that it was possible to find a way around restrictions imposed by the constitution. When Saddam Hussein refused to allow United Nations inspections for evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction to continue Clinton ordered his armed forces to bomb Iraq. Clinton showed that this clause set in the constitution essentially means nothing to the president and commander in chief of the USA. Clinton was able to bomb Iraq by calling this process a military operation and in doing so not actually waging war. There is a great deal that we can learn from the actions of Clinton in this particular circumstance. Clinton showed that by bombing Iraq he had found a loophole in the constitution that allowed him to act in a manner that the constitution would not have allowed had he declared the bombings part of a war. This shows us that the American constitution that is written perhaps may not be as rigid as first assumed, this example of behaviour by Clinton showed that there were all sorts of ways for a president to act in a way that the constitution theoretically bans, but due to it being so un-specific is perfectly possible.

    What was so very rare, but yet not unique about Clintons presidency was that he became only the second president of the USA to be impeached by the House of representatives. This came about as the result of a scandal involving a young woman working as secretary for Clinton in the White House; many saw Clintonís behaviour as un-becoming of a president and demanded that he was removed from office. However he was tried at the senate and was found not guilty, after this he was able to continue in his role as president whilst still maintaining high popularity levels throughout the country. We can learn several different things from this, not only does this suggest that the American public can be very loyal to its presidents and that a popular presidents can survive even the most heinous scandals but it also tells us about the restrictions that are supposedly imposed on the presidential powers. The convention of impeachment is intended to remove a president from office if the house of representative sees him as acting in a way that is seen to be radical, unconstitutional or unbecoming of a president. Whilst in theory and on paper this is a suitable and good idea, in reality it is vastly different. Essentially the method of impeachment is a clumsy and inappropriate weapon of congress if it is carried out to its final stages. If Clinton had been found guilty by the senate and forced to resign through impeachment then the consequences on American politics would have been severe. In modern times if a president were impeached the result would almost certainly lead to governmental paralysis and political uncertainty. We can learn from this that perhaps some of the restrictions on the actions and powers of the president laid down in article two of the constitution may not be as effective as first appeared. Whether Clinton intended it or not his presidency showed us that the restrictions in the constitution to a great extent are not all that effective as clauses set can often be easily avoided and got around, and that the other more serious constitutional acts such as impeachment would have such a disastrous affect on the politics of the USA that nobody truly dares to really ever go through with the procedure.

    The House of representatives and the Senate that make up Congress are also intended to put restrictions on the president and stop them from getting too powerful if it appears necessary, but yet there are more examples of how Clinton acted that would suggest to us that Congress is even less effective at controlling presidents than earlier assumed. In 1994 the republicans launched a scathing attack on Clinton, this should have put Clinton under a severe amount of pressure as the republicans had not held both houses of congress since 1955, but throughout this period Clinton was able to remain standing firm despite the onslaught he received for refusing to sign a hugely controversial budget that was passed by the republican controlled congress. Clinton was able to hold his ground and despite the fact that congress generated a shut down of the federal government in order to put pressure on Clinton he was able to avoid backing down and in the end forced the republicans to cave in. This episode obviously had no real effect on Clintonís popularity, as he was decisively re-elected in 1996.
    Essentially that by standing firm and not giving in despite immense pressure from both houses of congress we can determine that perhaps the restrictions they truly impose on limiting the presidents power and influence are minimal, the evidence gathered from the actions of Clinton would certainly suggest to us that the presidents actions arenít anywhere near as restricted as it is made out in the constitution.

  2. #2
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,825
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger
    There is a great deal that can be learned from studying his reign between his appointment and fall from power.
    when did he fall from power?

    he survived the impeachment and completed two terms before stepping down...
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    very very close friend of mine is an Arab Christian and he speaks Arabic too and the visible hidden filth shows the mentality which may never change .....
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    AAooouchh !!!!!
    I still remember that zipper accident of mine when I was in kindergarten ..... (Thing is OK I repeat thing is OK now )!!!

  3. #3
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    31,856
    true, i phrased that badly, by fall i mean exit i guess.

  4. #4
    U19 Debutant sammy123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    360
    stop posting ur homework
    all bow to the little master

    Honoured member of KKAS


  5. #5
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    31,856
    it isnt, its a detailed analysis on my perception on happenings in the modern era that i wish for other people to comment on

  6. #6
    International Regular twctopcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    winchester, england
    Posts
    3,477
    He was prob as much a rogue as Bush to be fair. But he did it without the air of incompetence that Bush carries with him, which is what counts. All politicians lie and are deceitful, but it is how they do that is important in my book.
    R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi (Cricket Player)

    'Last one on drugs is a queer,' yells portillo..
    Hope is a good thing, maybe even the best of things. And no good thing ever dies......
    Self appointed president of the KPPAS

  7. #7
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,726
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger
    , the evidence gathered from the actions of Clinton would certainly suggest to us that the presidents actions arenít anywhere near as restricted as it is made out in the constitution.
    Not sure id entirely agree with that. In foreging afairs Clinton clearly was able to persure the policies he wanted. However his failure to introduce a nationwide healt insurance bill shows that in domestic policy proabably because the nature of Amercia congress can have real controll over the president. I also think his presidency that al the way through it was subject to endless investigation and allegation shows the deep suspicion of the postition of president that can be traced right back to the founding of the nation and even more so after Nixon.

  8. #8
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    29,542
    Quote Originally Posted by twctopcat
    He was prob as much a rogue as Bush to be fair. But he did it without the air of incompetence that Bush carries with him, which is what counts. All politicians lie and are deceitful, but it is how they do that is important in my book.
    word out
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Don't like using my iPod dock. Ruins battery life too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Thanks Dick Smith. Will remember to subscribe to your newsletter for more electronic fun facts.

    ****.

  9. #9
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    31,856
    thanks for that, it will be added to it if i ever need to edit it hehe

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member steds's Avatar
    Breakout Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    ****ing cold and ****ing wet
    Posts
    17,201
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger
    To say that there is a reasonable amount of information to be gained and learned from studying Bill Clinton reign as president of the USA would be a great understatement. There is a great deal that can be learned from studying his reign between his appointment and fall from power. By studying Clinton reign we can begin to determine and analyse how effective the American constitution is in restricting one individual from becoming to powerful and if it adequately fulfils its purpose. Clinton had a hugely controversial spell in office; this was partly down to the Monica Lewinski affair.

    Clinton and Al Gore represented a new generation in American political leadership; this was down to the fact that for the first time in nearly twelve years the White House and congress were both held by the same party. What was so special about Clintonís rise to power was that he was from a very poor lower class background, which was very unusual for a president of the USA as many of his predecessors came from wealthy and rich backgrounds. By coming from such a background as his Clinton showed that the constitution was effective to the extent that it allowed for people from the lower classes to become president, as the constitution states that no financial or property qualifications needed in order to become president. This would suggest to us through our study that it is possible to achieve the American dream so to speak in the way that the constitution claims to be possible.

    Article two of the American constitution states that no president can declare war on a country without the approval of congress, by acting in a way to escape this loophole Clinton showed that it was possible to find a way around restrictions imposed by the constitution. When Saddam Hussein refused to allow United Nations inspections for evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction to continue Clinton ordered his armed forces to bomb Iraq. Clinton showed that this clause set in the constitution essentially means nothing to the president and commander in chief of the USA. Clinton was able to bomb Iraq by calling this process a military operation and in doing so not actually waging war. There is a great deal that we can learn from the actions of Clinton in this particular circumstance. Clinton showed that by bombing Iraq he had found a loophole in the constitution that allowed him to act in a manner that the constitution would not have allowed had he declared the bombings part of a war. This shows us that the American constitution that is written perhaps may not be as rigid as first assumed, this example of behaviour by Clinton showed that there were all sorts of ways for a president to act in a way that the constitution theoretically bans, but due to it being so un-specific is perfectly possible.

    What was so very rare, but yet not unique about Clintons presidency was that he became only the second president of the USA to be impeached by the House of representatives. This came about as the result of a scandal involving a young woman working as secretary for Clinton in the White House; many saw Clintonís behaviour as un-becoming of a president and demanded that he was removed from office. However he was tried at the senate and was found not guilty, after this he was able to continue in his role as president whilst still maintaining high popularity levels throughout the country. We can learn several different things from this, not only does this suggest that the American public can be very loyal to its presidents and that a popular presidents can survive even the most heinous scandals but it also tells us about the restrictions that are supposedly imposed on the presidential powers. The convention of impeachment is intended to remove a president from office if the house of representative sees him as acting in a way that is seen to be radical, unconstitutional or unbecoming of a president. Whilst in theory and on paper this is a suitable and good idea, in reality it is vastly different. Essentially the method of impeachment is a clumsy and inappropriate weapon of congress if it is carried out to its final stages. If Clinton had been found guilty by the senate and forced to resign through impeachment then the consequences on American politics would have been severe. In modern times if a president were impeached the result would almost certainly lead to governmental paralysis and political uncertainty. We can learn from this that perhaps some of the restrictions on the actions and powers of the president laid down in article two of the constitution may not be as effective as first appeared. Whether Clinton intended it or not his presidency showed us that the restrictions in the constitution to a great extent are not all that effective as clauses set can often be easily avoided and got around, and that the other more serious constitutional acts such as impeachment would have such a disastrous affect on the politics of the USA that nobody truly dares to really ever go through with the procedure.

    The House of representatives and the Senate that make up Congress are also intended to put restrictions on the president and stop them from getting too powerful if it appears necessary, but yet there are more examples of how Clinton acted that would suggest to us that Congress is even less effective at controlling presidents than earlier assumed. In 1994 the republicans launched a scathing attack on Clinton, this should have put Clinton under a severe amount of pressure as the republicans had not held both houses of congress since 1955, but throughout this period Clinton was able to remain standing firm despite the onslaught he received for refusing to sign a hugely controversial budget that was passed by the republican controlled congress. Clinton was able to hold his ground and despite the fact that congress generated a shut down of the federal government in order to put pressure on Clinton he was able to avoid backing down and in the end forced the republicans to cave in. This episode obviously had no real effect on Clintonís popularity, as he was decisively re-elected in 1996.
    Essentially that by standing firm and not giving in despite immense pressure from both houses of congress we can determine that perhaps the restrictions they truly impose on limiting the presidents power and influence are minimal, the evidence gathered from the actions of Clinton would certainly suggest to us that the presidents actions arenít anywhere near as restricted as it is made out in the constitution.

  11. #11
    International Regular twctopcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    winchester, england
    Posts
    3,477
    I perhaps think i'm too cynical sometimes. But my view on politics is pretty bad. Waiting times?? Nothing can be done. Tax? Gonna go up. Politicians? A bunch of useless ******s.

  12. #12
    International Captain Piper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6,350
    Quote Originally Posted by twctopcat
    I perhaps think i'm too cynical sometimes. But my view on politics is pretty bad. Waiting times?? Nothing can be done. Tax? Gonna go up. Politicians? A bunch of useless ******s.
    Thomas!!! But i agree with u tho
    February 10th 2009 <3
    Rest In Peace Fardin
    Rest In Peace Sazza

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by twctopcat
    I perhaps think i'm too cynical sometimes. But my view on politics is pretty bad. Waiting times?? Nothing can be done. Tax? Gonna go up. Politicians? A bunch of useless ******s.
    You can be cynical without refusing to pay attention. I find the "politicans are a bunch of useless *******s" thing is usually just a cover of apathy. I don't think much of most politicians either, but there are some good ones and there's always the lesser of two evils. The only way you'll get them to improve is by supporting politicians who are interested in the things you stand for and opposing those who do the wrong thing.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  14. #14
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    31,856
    well said faaip, very well said indeed

  15. #15
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,726
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    You can be cynical without refusing to pay attention. I find the "politicans are a bunch of useless *******s" thing is usually just a cover of apathy. I don't think much of most politicians either, but there are some good ones and there's always the lesser of two evils. The only way you'll get them to improve is by supporting politicians who are interested in the things you stand for and opposing those who do the wrong thing.
    Yes exactly, people also fail to realise what a very hard job politicians face



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •