Obama versus Reagan
The US presidency has seen varying figures both in personality and leadership take on the White House with alternating Democrat and Republican leaders. The varying ideological differences of the two parties with one pledging allegiance to the conservative wing, primarily the republican while the democratic leaders have weighed in towards more liberal identities have often transcended into the leadership styles that the alternate presidents of the consecutive parties assumed though to some extent, they were influenced by personalities. Such is the case for Barrack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan, upon taking office in 1981, embraced a vehemently aggressive model towards the USSR which stemmed from his perception of the USSR as an evil empire. This perception saw him put America’s machination engendered in its military might, diplomatic censures, and economic prowess by imposing economic trade censures with a multiplicity of moral pressure on Moscow (Walsh, 2009). This brought him about as a true cold war warrior whose metal was ready to be tested by any that dared do including The Kremlin. As such Reagan may have come about as a democrat in the American context by virtue of his election through an open process but in the eyes of the world he did little to fall short of an Aristocrat who wanted to impose himself and his legacy on a sovereign State (Jordan, 2003).
Despite the threat that a militarily powerful Russia posed to the US national security, President Obama simply chose not to engage America’s might of its vast economic resources as well as military might in facing the Russian dilemma (Harding, 2009). The President lowered himself down, to conservatives and patriots disappointment, by offering engagement with the former USSR. To the president isolating a wounded Russia was far more dangerous as it will continue to enrich its might in defence against America. The President made a trip to Moscow in his first year of presidency to put a face to this engagement. In addition he ceased a missile defence shield in Poland; an enemy of Moscow, a project that his predecessor had engineered that would see America interrupt long-range missiles that had been launched from as far as Iran. This policy of international engagement and ceasing of isolation and intimidation is characteristic of Obama’s leadership as he chooses to engage governments around the world. This policy seems to be varying from Reagan’s initial policy with regard to Russia. As such Obama comes about as a noble leader who gives a chance for peaceful resolution as contrasted to Reagan’s Aristocracy in his initial stages. Reagan though later changed his mind when the leadership changed hands in Russia bringing a very innovative Gobachev on the scene.
Both the presidents seem to have been reared well as far as communicating is concerned. Obama’s mastery of rhetoric in leadership saw him energize the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a speech that has generally been perceived as his launching pad to the presidency. Reagan as well was also known to be a good communicator as political analysts awarded him a B+ on his immense capability to portray his programs to the public in a favourable manner
Another field that compares the two presidents is with regard to liberality in accommodating other sections that are not the province of their party. Reagan in his presidency came about as the cutting edge in US politics with his luring appeal to the opposing Democrats. With this incentive in place Reagan found room for his opponents who felt that they had been deserted by their own party under the leadership of President Carter. Reagan redefined the nature of the Republican Party in reach for Democrats. Reagan did not focus his goals on a majority in the house, nor engage his strategists in aiming for high percentages of 51% as Bush did (de Rugy, 2009)). He went for the presidency with the perspective of a national candidate, seeking the general support of the public across the political divide, including the democrat vote under his basket. The support of these democrats would be crucial for he needed their goodwill in running the country (Sullivan 2008). Obama emerged out of a similar situation as Reagan. He came out of utter recklessness by the government in two wars that lacked the public goodwill. Obama liberality in his politics amazed many by its inability to evoke Republican discontent during the campaigning for the 2008 election. He had a calm confident and reasoned comportment that failed to be swept away in muddled partisan scam characterized with politics of race which favourably appealed to Republicans who were less concerned. He came about as Obama’s presidency is also characterized with a leadership that is significantly concerned with freedom as primarily related to civil liberties. Obama, in his presidency, identified expression, religion and political engagement together with access to information as the major premises of freedom. This he said was deeply engrossed in the American grain. In many circles this has been received as not necessarily consisting of liberties with regard to enterprise and small government as well as property rights. Reagan on the other hand sought to limit the extent of the government such that those who had been assigned the mandate to govern did not try to veer off from the circle that their election mandate prescribed. Reagan defined government by tying it to enterprise (Walsh, 2009)).
Ronald Reagan, upon taking office in 1981, embraced a vehemently aggressive model towards the USSR which stemmed from his perception of the USSR as an evil empire. This perception saw him put America’s machination engendered in its military might, diplomatic censures, and economic prowess by imposing economic trade censures with a multiplicity of moral pressure on Moscow (Walsh, 2009). This brought him about as a true cold war warrior whose metal was ready to be tested by any that dared do including The Kremlin. As such Reagan may have come about as a democrat in the American context by virtue of his election through an open process but in the eyes of the world he did little to fall short of an Aristocrat who wanted to impose himself and his legacy on a sovereign State (Jordan, 2003).
Despite the threat that a militarily powerful Russia posed to the US national security, President Obama simply chose not to engage America’s might of its vast economic resources as well as military might in facing the Russian dilemma (Harding, 2009). The President lowered himself down, to conservatives and patriots disappointment, by offering engagement with the former USSR. To the president isolating a wounded Russia was far more dangerous as it will continue to enrich its might in defence against America. The President made a trip to Moscow in his first year of presidency to put a face to this engagement. In addition he ceased a missile defence shield in Poland; an enemy of Moscow, a project that his predecessor had engineered that would see America interrupt long-range missiles that had been launched from as far as Iran. This policy of international engagement and ceasing of isolation and intimidation is characteristic of Obama’s leadership as he chooses to engage governments around the world. This policy seems to be varying from Reagan’s initial policy with regard to Russia. As such Obama comes about as a noble leader who gives a chance for peaceful resolution as contrasted to Reagan’s Aristocracy in his initial stages. Reagan though later changed his mind when the leadership changed hands in Russia bringing a very innovative Gobachev on the scene.
Both the presidents seem to have been reared well as far as communicating is concerned. Obama’s mastery of rhetoric in leadership saw him energize the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a speech that has generally been perceived as his launching pad to the presidency. Reagan as well was also known to be a good communicator as political analysts awarded him a B+ on his immense capability to portray his programs to the public in a favourable manner
Another field that compares the two presidents is with regard to liberality in accommodating other sections that are not the province of their party. Reagan in his presidency came about as the cutting edge in US politics with his luring appeal to the opposing Democrats. With this incentive in place Reagan found room for his opponents who felt that they had been deserted by their own party under the leadership of President Carter. Reagan redefined the nature of the Republican Party in reach for Democrats. Reagan did not focus his goals on a majority in the house, nor engage his strategists in aiming for high percentages of 51% as Bush did (de Rugy, 2009)). He went for the presidency with the perspective of a national candidate, seeking the general support of the public across the political divide, including the democrat vote under his basket. The support of these democrats would be crucial for he needed their goodwill in running the country (Sullivan 2008). Obama emerged out of a similar situation as Reagan. He came out of utter recklessness by the government in two wars that lacked the public goodwill. Obama liberality in his politics amazed many by its inability to evoke Republican discontent during the campaigning for the 2008 election. He had a calm confident and reasoned comportment that failed to be swept away in muddled partisan scam characterized with politics of race which favourably appealed to Republicans who were less concerned. He came about as Obama’s presidency is also characterized with a leadership that is significantly concerned with freedom as primarily related to civil liberties. Obama, in his presidency, identified expression, religion and political engagement together with access to information as the major premises of freedom. This he said was deeply engrossed in the American grain. In many circles this has been received as not necessarily consisting of liberties with regard to enterprise and small government as well as property rights. Reagan on the other hand sought to limit the extent of the government such that those who had been assigned the mandate to govern did not try to veer off from the circle that their election mandate prescribed. Reagan defined government by tying it to enterprise (Walsh, 2009)).
