Modern Conservative Party Twitter Page

https://twitter.com/M_Conservative

Video Link


This is the Modern Liberal Party's Second Campaign Ad.

Campaign Ad Video

This is the Modern Liberal Party's First Campaign Ad

Cynthia Dias and the Modern Conservative Party are not firm on their stances.  Will Dias and her VP be Flip-floppers?  Probably.

Stripes Party Campaign Ad

Stripes Party Campaign Ad

Modern Liberal Twitter

https://

twitter.com/modernliberalUS

Star Party Twitter Account

https://twitter.com/

Star Party Twitter Account

Star Party Campaign Ad

http://youtu.be/fBxkkX490PM

This is the Star Party new campaign ad on Youtube. Ignore the last 3.

Mitt Romney Gangnam Style Dance

In other words, this is why it is important to choose a good theme to enter into for stump speeches.
This is from the tonight show. Enjoy!

Follow the Stripes Party on Twitter!

Stripes Party Twitter

Modern Liberal Project Accounts

@modernliberalpolitics -insta

@modernliberalUS

AP Exam Review Materials

In preparation for our review sessions this week I have put together a poll that I will use to help me (and you) determine which units to focus on during review days. Please take the time to vote in the poll, and remember you are allowed to select more than 1 unit when voting.

Also, here is a link that could be useful for your AP exam preparation. It will take you to the College Board's APStudents site specifically designed to prepare you for the AP US Gov exam. Especially, useful is a list of all the frq's given from 2003-2013 (downloadable in PDF format). However, in order to view the FRQs from past exams you will need to log into your College Board account. 

APStudent US Government & Politics Exam Practice Page

Finally, remember there are Barron's books available in my room as well as a myriad of  study materials that can be found online.

Lastly...

Bureaucracy Blog Debate

Ideally the government should be fully efficient to provide the best service for the people as the bureaucracy is meant to serve the people and it is our government. The bureaucracy provides people with services that they need so if the government is the one to implement those then they need to provide the people with the best service they can.  However, as we know the government is not efficient with pretty much any of its agencies and it does not do a great job all the time.  Realistically, the government should try to be as efficient as it can and keep that in the back of their mind but really they need to make sure that are adequately serving the people.  For the government in order to properly serve us they might not be able to be as efficient as we would like.  However, the main priority is them fulfilling their duties to us.  Saying this it shouldn’t mean that they take forever but they shouldn’t have to rush.  Them rushing would only lead to them not properly serving us and meeting our needs.  Like ally mentioned in her blog post about the 900,000 veterans who are waiting to receive health benefits I see where she thinks the government and our bureaucracy should be efficient to take care of that.  I think that in certain situations the government should rush and prioritize those cases especially for people who served our country. 

              It is true, the way the government is set up causes the bureaucratic pathologies to be inevitable.  For example, the red tape pathology can never be avoided.  The government has to write everything down and file paperwork and have regulations on so many things in order for the government to run properly.  That is necessary for the safety of the people.  So with all of this the efficiency is then affected.   If the government was run like a business it would just become more corrupt.  The government was meant to service the people and businesses only look to help themselves.  This would even further hurt the people.  The power that the government already holds over the people would be taken to a whole new level. However, it can be seen that only certain programs might be able to be run like a business.  The dmv for example might run better as a business because it cannot be corrupted and an outside source might run that system better and quicker. 

             

Bureaucracy Blog Debate

Efficiency in government and the bureaucracy is the most important goal in mind because the main point of having government and the bureaucracy is to ensure the public stays in control and is able to function, without major problems. If the systems are inefficient and do not perform the required function, then government would be pointless. Efficiency is not the only goal of the government, however. The government must also ensure its people are safe and to protect all of its citizens rights, but in order to do this the system must be efficient. The Daily Show clips explained how over 900,000 veterans are currently waiting in order to receive health benefits coming home from war and how almost the entire system was still being conducted using paper. This inefficiency causes the veterans who have served to protect our country to suffer without the benefits which they were promised. Since these people have risked their lives and fought for our country's freedom, they should not have to wait for their benefits they deserve because the system is inefficient. Efficiency of all government and bureaucratic agencies must be the first priority in order to function. However, even though the systems do take a long time in order to function and are not extremely efficient, a majority of the time they do work in the long run. The process for example of veterans receiving their benefits takes on average about a year, but they do end up getting their reward in the end.
 Weber wanted for a bureaucracy to work like a business where everyone is in charge of their own job and they all work their own task to get the job done. This would be the ideal way for any company or agency to work, but with mixed ideas from different parties and outside opinions, this is not how the bureaucracy in the United States works. Since the nature of government is competition between the parties, the republicans and democratics are constantly working to gain the most power and have the most influence in the way government runs. This constant conflict causes for the bureaucratic agencies to not function to their best ability. The obsession to try to gain control causes competition between the parties and the system does not run as an organized structure as Weber had envisioned. Therefore, the nature of the government does cause the bureaucracies to operate differently than Weber has expected.

There are positives and negatives to running the government like a business. If the government were like a business, everyone would have a specific role that they have to accomplish and it would cause the system to be much more efficient because it would model Weber's idea. Also, the productivity would increase if one person was working on a task rather than many people arguing on how to make it better. One negative result of the government being run like a business is many people who now are in the bureaucracy would lose their jobs, creating a higher unemployment rate throughout the country. Millions of jobs would be unnecessary if only one person had a specific role, so there would be fewer people needed to make decisions. If less people were hired however, then this would be less people the government has to pay for unnecessary jobs in the government. So, either way there are positives and negatives to making the bureaucracy run more like a business.

Bureaucratic Pathologies

In my personal opinion sometimes efficiency can breed problems of its own. There is a lot of grid lock in Congress that "gunks" up the bureaucratic system, however, if programs were changed to appease those who have dug their heels into the dirt it could create a lot of problems of its own. This can cause programs to be bias and work more for those that it aimed to appease than for the public good in which the program is supposed to help. A person that complies with all changes and requests to a system can also be considered effieicnet, however, it is important to honor the merit system. If programs are in a constant flux to match the fickle requests of the gorvernment than it would never be able to function. By handing the power to enfore the rules and regulations given to the bureaucracy to officials that are knowledgeable enough to make the decisions necessary to promote effectiveness allows for programs to live up to their fullest potentional even if ithey doen't always comply with the government and could create inefficiency. Another important point to remember is that while duplication can create waste and inefficiency it allows for an important checks and balance system. There is a competition within the agency for budgeting on certain programs that they share in common. That competition allows for innovation and productivity that may not be otherwise accomplished if all programs that held similar jobs were cut.

Weber believed that for a bureaucracy to work it needed to be structured in a hierarchial system, there needed to be task specialization, extensive rules, clear goals, the merit principle, and impersonality. he wanted a cold, cut and dry system that worked more like a machine. Everyone in the machine has a well defined task and no matter what happens around that person they remain on their objective so that their goal is accomplished. The system dreamed up by Weber is very black and white. The American system of government is a lot more gray. The nature of government is to be ever changing so that it can match the culture in which it protects and resides over. Some goals may not be clear at the beginning of an endeavor. There are many instances in which the end goal isn't really defined and the means at which achieving it are even blurrier. For example, the EPA was created to protect the enviroment and the people that live in it. It was created due to an outcry from the people. What types of regulations fall within the domain of the government and what can the government do to both protect the enviroment and the profits of the companies that are polluting it. Gray areas that are left up to people to define. There will always be human error and uncertainity. People are not machines and they can, with 1005 certainty, identify the outcome of any actions that they take. People more or less make it up as they go along, a trial-and-error that allows us to find a system that works the best even if it does not stay confined within the peraminters of Weber's Beaucractic System.

One solution that has been posed is changning the system that exists and make the bureaucracy run like a business. I don't agree with this solution because businesses strive to make a profit without necessarily caring sbout the well being of the public. These agencies were created to protect the public good. Privitization can lead to less regulation and higher risk to the people of the United States. If the EPA was privitized some regulations might be taken away to maximize profits and the Connecticut River may turn green once again.

The bureacracy has a lot of non essential employees that makes it hard for the government to reduce spending. Marco Rubio beleived that for every 2 people that retire only one person should be hired back to cut the amount of people on the payroll. This spending doesn't even account for what the agency is supposed to be doing it only counts for the people hired to do it.

A lot of back logging is creating a serious problem in the VA like seen in the videos from the Daily Show. 97% of their records were paper in 2013 and modernization was slow because computer programs meant to help reduce this problem can't work together. This causes for a lot of people not to recieve the benefits they need in a timely fashion. It can also lead to inadequate accountablitity of those in charge of the various programs within the VA.

There is a lot of dupplication and excess in the Bureaucracy that causes excess spending and adds to the deficit and instead of reducing the number of programs they just press forward with what they have and even add more to it causing even more spending.

Bureaucracy Blog Debate

As we have discussed in class, the popularly held view of the American bureaucracy is that it is a bloated and inefficient system staffed by incompetent employees. Needless to say, it is not a very flattering portrayal of an essential part of our government. However,while most agree there is inefficiency, just what causes this inefficiency and what reforms can be made to fix these bureaucratic pathologies is a topic of much debate. 

The Assignment:

1. View the videos on bureaucratic pathologies and reform posted below and take notes.
• The Daily Show clips “Red Tape Diaries”
• Marco Rubio’s Bureaucratic Reform
• Democracy in America’s The Bureaucracy: A Controversial Necessity (Just the EPA section).
2. Generate arguments for the following  statements on your assignment sheet:
•  “Efficiency is not the only worthy goal and not all publicly run programs are inefficient.”
• Bureaucratic pathologies are inherent because of the “nature of government”.
• Think about Weber's 6 characteristics of an ideal bureaucracy here!!
• The best way to reform American bureaucracy is to privatize it (run it like a business).
3. Debate each statement  by commenting on each of the blog posts below.

Bureaucracy Blog Debate: Statement 1

“Efficiency is not the only worthy goal and not all publicly run programs are inefficient.”

Bureaucracy Blog Debate: Statement 2

Bureaucratic pathologies are inherent because of the “nature of government”.

Bureaucracy Blog Debate: Statement 3

The best way to reform American bureaucracy is to privatize it (run it like a business).

Woodrow Wilson and the Leauge of Nations

https://prezi.com/a_kavklh48aj/copy-of-untitled-prezi/

Nuclear Deal Current Event

The Nuclear Deal

LBJ & The Civil Rights

LBJ & The Civil Rights

Truman Drops the Atomic Bomb

https://prezi.com/qwcydp20ix_l/background/

The Seven Stages of Empire

This is a video made by the same person that made the video I shared with you all earlier this year. In this video, he shows how the monetary system keeps repeating and repeating, and how to recognize it. For those of you that actually watch this, I hope you enjoy because this is a very interesting video about the world's monetary system and how our government affects it.

Truman Drops the Atomic Bomb

https://prezi.com/1zwlmlkbjxyr/edit/#0_24309637

Bailey Roy and Amber Marin's Emancipation Proclamation project

http://prezi.com/pzuut8jfmuxk/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

here is the link to our prezi!

Teddy Roosevelt Builds the Panama Canal

Prezi

George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion Prezi

http://prezi.com/dfh7_asrfogt/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

There is the link to my prezi if you can't access my prezi below.

Ford Pardons Nixon Presentation

Alyse, Ryan and Brian's Ford Pardons Nixon Prezi

Kennedy and the Moon

Kennedy and the Moon by Ethan and Logan

Julia and Susan's Prezi: Ford Pardons Nixon

LBJ & The Civil Rights Act

https://prezi.com/xewpgrctct9g/lyndon-b-johnson/

Truman Fires MacArthur

http://prezi.com/layx6rx8xdrc/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

Obama Typology

President Barack Obama has had many instances in his terms as president that have shown us his typology as a leader.  What I have concluded is that Obama shows to be mostly Passive Positive.  From the video we watched, there were multiple instances where it showed Obama doing things in a manner where he just wanted approval from others.  For example, with the Bankers, Obama did not show much reinforcement when they did something wrong.  Instead, he let them off with much less punishment then they deserved.  

Being the way he is does not, in my opinion, make him an effective President for multiple reasons.  Some of these reasons include that, because he did not take the incident with the Bankers more seriously, people will be losing respect for him.  Another reason I feel is important is that he is just generally too soft and approval seeking.  Seeking so much approval could force him to make decisions that he THINKS would increase his approval ratings but may very well not be what the country needs.  This is especially dangerous in the time period we are in now when nuclear war could be potentially very real if it ever came to that and he needs to know how to put his foot down and make the hard decisions and know that not everyone will agree with everything he does.

I think that the type of president voters would both likely be looking for in the 2016 election would be someone who is willing and able to take charge when a situation gets tough and will not be overly concerned with his approval ratings and will be more focused on what is best for the country.  The country needs someone who is strong and intelligent and, most importantly, will know how to make the hard decisions that need to be made.

Obama: Active-Negative

President is an active-negative president. He is an active-negative president in his 2^nd term of his presidency he has been trying to get as much done as he can possibly do with the time he has left. I read an article in upfront magazine that was questioning whether or not he is a lame duck, which basically means that since Obama is in his 2^nd term he has nothing to lose because he can’t get re-elected, and he will pass legislation or use the executive order power that we have seen. An example of this is the executive order that will temporarily shield about 5 million immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally in the United States. Also he sealed a major climate-change deal with between China and the U.S that will make significant cuts in emissions. He recently re-established diplomatic ties with Cuba for the first time in 50 years. None of these actions required congressional approval. This proves that he is an active-negative president because he has had 8 years to do all of these things however he has waited and now realizes that he is leaving office and finally acted. He does not fit the time period because we needed a president that is strong for his whole term not just portions of it. In 2016 voters will be looking for an active-positive president to be aggressive, work with congress and get things done.

Obama Analysis

President Obama started off his presidential career as a type active-positive. He originally showed a positive attitude towards achieving his goals. Just his want to create Obamacare and follow through with his goals. He had a higher self-esteem (shown when he called out Paul Ryan on national television). He used to be more confident in his decisions. I believe that the presidency changed him over time to an active-negative. Obama is no longer emotionally meeting his goals and just trying to get as much passed as possible before the end of his second term. The Republican majority in congress does not want to allow him to get anything done. The trouble with them has worn him down over time and caused his negative change. As his approval rating has dropped as well, he has changed to active-negative. He's still getting things done, but he isn't emotionally doing so. He is also constantly trying to have power (mainly because of the Republican congress), but has trouble maintaining it. I believe that at this time, in the currant political climate an active president is definitely necessary. President Obama definitely meets the active part, but not the character. He needs to have been strong enough to remain active-positive. A president that doesn't emotionally meet their goals isn't right for the political climate. The people have a very low opinion of government and need a postive president to raise that opinion. For 2016, voters would be looking for an active-postive president. This president would be better with dealing with a congress that is against them, and will be able to accomplish more by emotionally meeting his goals. 

Obama's Presidential Typology

The typology that I think best suits President Obama's character type is Active positive, but at sometimes in his presidency he can be seen as a active negative president because of how progressively harder it was to get things done. First of all, a president with a active positive typology exhibits the qualities of being able to be productive while being cooperative with his constituents and members of Congress and in return shows very high signs of emotional reward for the effort he puts forth. Early on in his presidency, Obama showed to be very confident in his judgement and ability which would obviously resemble an active positive type that indicates a relatively high self esteem. Another reason why president Obama was active positive is because he was very determined to take on health care reform by implementing the Affordable Care Act. The fact that Obama wanted to pass this bill without a doubt makes him active positive. In the front line documentary, it explained that many people told Obama not to get involved with health care reform, but he was eager to anyways because he wanted to show that he could take on more bi-partisan legislation to show he was in the presidency to achieve results which is a primary quality of an active positive type. In these acts of trying to cooperate with Congress during its critical change from Democratic to Republican majority in the House and Senate, Obama went after Bin Laden after taking in consideration the suggestions of his advisers and members of Congress. They went through with this action, located and killed Bin Laden which was a very high point in success in Obama's presidency that did not go without recognition. However, as Congress's staff changed to a republican majority, Obama became more active positive when the republicans would constantly say no and reject his proposed ideas because he is nearing the end of his presidency. He has shown to put a lot of effort into politics, but receives very little in return. To conclude, Obama would make an effective president for his time because of the fact that there is a split Congress and he needs to be assertive in trying to pass bills. Also, I think that people should be looking for a president like President Obama and his typology, but it depends on whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican.

Obama as the Podas

Based on Barber's theory, Obama would be categorized as active passive, but in actuality, he is aiming to be active positive but is struggling with congress, especially after his first two years. Obama has until recently used his power as president aggressively, (immigration bill/ vetos) and although he seems to put in attempts to woe over congress he has come out with little success. Republicans have refused to get along with Obama and have not given much bargaining room, ruining his hopes of bipartisanship. This is also partly his fault as he has been more reactive than proactive on making deals at the right time. He met with the Republican Caucus on Capital Hill in an attempt to work out a bargain, however the leadership had already put a heavy foot down on a no vote to the stimulus bill. This shows his aspirations to get things done, however as far as follow through goes there is not much to support his activeness. Despite having powers granted in the constitution, the powers a president has changes depending on the person holding office and Obama lacked the ability to take charge and obtain control. Obama had confidence in his ability and wanted to deal with bigger things than the economy; he wanted to make a legacy and that would not be possible when he's focused on banks. He out in efforts with Mr. Boehner on the stimulus bill but because of the tea pastiest the deal fell through. However, this does not mean Obama's entire presidency is a failure. His optimism never quivers and h still makes effort to bring change. He has the qualities we look for in a president but his environment is not the best. He is bad with the use of his powers as a bargaining tool, but he tries his best to be an active and positive president. He simply isnt as strong of a force to congress as he should be. Republicans show him no respect as commander and cheif. He is a big softy which is not the way to see your agenda set, especially not when the political climate is at its harshest and the government is divided. The president is supposed to seem larger than life, but Obama's too nice and innocent to accomplish his Agenda. America needs a guy who can force congress into making hard deals and not have policy loyal to his party and then expects republicans to agree with it.

Obama Character Analysis

I feel that President Obama is a Passive Positive president. Most people would think that this type of President would not work out because they would be a "pushover" and easily crumble under pressure. This type of president might also negotiate deals and give up more than he should. Obama fits this role better than any other role, but he cannot really be placed in any of these categories because he is almost forced into these roles. It is also applicable to his personality the most because if his conditions were ideal for him, he would still have to acclimate to a different role than he would have usually been in, but I believe he would still be passive because it is not his personality to be aggressive. I don't believe this is good for the time period we are in because with the new modern age, we have the media where everything could be done very quickly and everyone wants a quick and decisive decision to be made once they are alerted of it. Also, the new type of problems in the world where you need to be quick with your decisions or you will be in serious danger, people need the quickness to get there maximum potential of safety.

        For the 2016 election we deserve a president who is active-positive. We should have one like that because that is what would be best for the entire country. We should have a president who is assertive and doesn't give up easily. Obama, during his presidency has not really been assertive in making decisions because he fears that whatever he proposes will be shot down by Congress and whatever he vetoes will be overturned in Congress. We should not have a too active-positive president because that could lead to an abuse of power which no one would want. This would also not be good for us because it might get too much done and lead to things that people would not want done.

The photo I chose shows his reliance on others to get things done that he can't get done himself.

Obama and the Barber Theory

While I feel that overall Barber's Theory is flawed and fails at it's main purpose(helping voters analyze who they are voting for) it is still an interesting way to look at the overall feeling of a presidents years in office. For Obama's years in office I would say he would most closely be identified as an Active Positive President. I think for the most part everyone agrees that Obama is a Positive President. He seems happy and like he likes his job. He is also spreading a positive message of bipartisanship, coming together, hope, and change. Those all make him positive. The debate comes in on the part of him being either Passive or Active. I believe that the root of this stems from the current political climate. The climate currently is very partisan, as was mentioned several times in the documentary Obama is a polarizing figure. Obama seems to always want to get things done, like an active president would do. Examples of this are both with helathcare and initiating the Grand Bargain deals with Boehner His passiveness seems to only come in to effect when facing the uncompromising force that seems to be the Republican Party, the Tea Party in particular. He tried to bring them along for the ride when it came to the big healthcare legislation but they would have none of it.

Here are some cartoons that I feel help describe the climate:

This illustrates how Obama is a polarizing figure

The Tea Party Unwillingness to Compromise

 In all honesty, I think that Obama is not a strong enough President when it comes to today's political climate. While he may still be and Active President he is not active enough. He needs to crackdown on his political opponents if he really wants to get something done.
That being said I also believe that we will still need a strongly Active Positive President in 2016. While being able to adapt and compromise is nice, it is impossible to compromise with a brick wall. Especially if that brick wall is willing to act like a child and shut the government down because it didn't get it's way.
To fix the current political climate that our country is in we need a strong, goal-oriented President. This doesn't mean iron-willed. It means being sensible. It means wanting to get things done. It means that when a group has proven they are completely unreasonable to work with to abandon them and move onto things that can get accomplished. Obama made the right move when he pretty much gave up trying to be bipartisan because it simply hasn't been working.

How the Tea Party has taken over the GOP

Now to say a few things about Barber's theory. It is an interesting way to generally classify a President's years in office, but it is only that. It is impossible to predict what someone will do while in office until he has the job. The Presidency is too unique of a position to have any kind of accurate prediction. A general direction can be predicted but anything more specific can only be determined for incumbents.        

And finally how both parties don't really seem to like the Tea Party all that much

      

Barber's Theory of Presidential Character: Obama

President Barack Obama most exhibits character traits that land him the passive positive box. The most impactful parts of Obama's character are his need for approval and his inability to adapt to to achieve necessary goals. In the beginning of his presidency Obama was faced with the crisis on Wall Street. This was a great way to observe both of his major characteristics. In his dealings with the CEOs who were more or less at fault for the economics crash Obama wanted their compliance and didn't reprimand them. He was in a perfect position to not only show those bankers but also the who country that he was the type of man to put his foot down and do what the country needed. Instead he tried to compromise with them and that lead to them not respecting his authority as a leader. This was seen when they didn't even bother to show up to a speech he made on Wall Street about its condition. The nation also saw Obama's inability to adapt. He came into his position with the goal to work on reforming health care and while many would argue that his ability to achieve that goal makes him active I disagree. Health care was not a prominent issue when he took office, he made it one. The prominent issue was Wall Street and instead of seeing it that issue through until its completion he put it off to the side and just stirred more trouble up for himself. This is not what our country needs in this moment in time.
Our country needs a president that will deal with the open ended issues that are plaguing this country before beginning any more projects. We need someone that will make the hard and fast decisions that will not necessarily make them popular but will aid the people of this nation overall. I believe that an active positive president is what we need. An example is Lydon B. Johnson. He worked on the issue of his time that everyone in the nation was calling for him to deal with, civil rights. Action needed to be taken and he took it. Even after a southern congressmen told he would lose the support of the entire south he made the decision to fight for civil rights. He wasn't looking for the approval of the nation he was looking for what the nation needed.

This is an image of Obama shaking the hand of one of the CEOs to a bank that nearly destroyed the nation's economy.

This is an image of LBJ telling the southern congressman that he just couldn't give a damn.

Obama's Character Type

I believe that Obama best fits Barber's character type of active-positive. This is shown through his hard work and dedication to the job. An active-positive president is somebody who has high self-esteem, enjoys being on the job, and is committed to reaching compromise and setting new goals. Obama meets these requirements. He did everything he could to get a new health care law passed and for that bill to become a part of the government's role. Aside from getting health care laws passed, he has been productive enough in reach decisions with the newly gained Republican majority. The two are making compromises and haven't really run into much trouble. However, Obama needs to be much more aggressive. Something that is happening during his presidency now is all the foreign affair and foreign relations problems. ISIS is becoming and issue along with Iran wanting to have a great deal of nuclear power. Obama cannot jut let these things go and hold them off. When the Republicans recently wrote a letter to Iran and went behind Obama's back, he should have dealt with that way more than he actually did. That was disrespectful on the Republicans side and the only power they have on foreign relations is to declare war. Everything else is basically in Obama's hands. So, during a climate like there is today Obama needs to be able to put his foot down and let everyone know that he has the most powerful position within the democracy. That is something that he is lacking and needs to work on for the rest of the Presidency including the fact that the Republicans have full majority. Some of the active-positive traits will come into play as far as compromise goes and getting things accomplished but in order for that to actually occur, he needs to be a little more aggressive. I think that voters in 2016 will be looking for someone who is a mix of active/passive positive. This is because they have high self-esteem for their work while also having good success but can also be cooperative and open to change. They will also be a little more harsh and not so soft when it comes to politics.

Obama's Character Type

In my opinion, I strongly believe that Obama's character type is definitely active but he sways from positive to negative sometimes. There cant be a definite type for Obama. his presidency has proven to be delicate in his past two terms. Tension between Congress and Obama has changed a lot in the past 7 years. When Obama was running for president, he had a very active positive outlook. He wanted to make policy more bipartisan and he seemed very confident in the fact that he could do that. When Obama was elected into office, his outlook took a 180. He never realized how much Congress would be a pain in the butt. He tried to show republicans a new budget plan and he was optimistic that he could make them change their minds and help him out. He got nothing out of that meeting and he put on his poker face so he didnt look defeated. He was very active negative when he needed bankers help to back him and none of them showed up to his meeting. This set him back and made him realize what he was in for. The whole process of making Obamacare a thing put a real damper on the president because he saw how much the opposition would not budge. When Obamacare was passed Obama had a mix of positive and negative. Positive because he got a huge piece of legislation passed and negative because he knew he would face a lot of opposition in the future. Also, he knew that a lot of work had to be done before he could start celebrating. As his presidency went on, Obama became even more negative. In his second term, he has had to go toe to toe with the brute forces of the republicans.  They have basically said no to all of Obama's ideas. He sees rebellion of the republicans that goes on for many years and is loathing the future of his presidency for that reason. Obama has turned very negative towards the end of his second term. Obama's character type doesnt fit this this time period because an active positive president is needed to kill the gridlock in congress that has been happening for some years now. 2016 voters should definitely look out for a good active positive candidate that looks to be a solid figure
Click here for an article about Obama's character type

This article goes on to explain how Obama doesnt really show a zest for being president so he cant really be classified as active positive. His outlook on the presidency so far makes him look a lot more like an active negative president. He has swayed a lot throughout his presidency though.

Obama's Presidential Character

            After reading an excerpt from Barber’s theory on presidential character and watching the Frontline document, I believe President Obama is both active-positive and passive-positive, but mostly active-positive. A president that reflects this characterization usually enjoys the job, wants results, will be flexible to obtain his goals, and is context when he has accomplished something. All of the qualities are present in Obama. When he first started his campaign, what he associated with himself was “hope” and “change”. This “hope” and “change” was his promise to try and make bipartisan legislation and work alongside the Republican Party. Another example was his healthcare reform; he didn’t know exactly what he was going to do but knew that he was going to do something about it. Once Obama got into office, he took action. He went through with the healthcare reform, ignoring his party’s pleas for him not to and after he went through with it, he received disapproval from them. Also in 2011, Obama chose to go through with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. This was an extremely risky choice, but as president he felt it needed to be done. Although healthcare reform and the assassination of a terrorist are two different things, they are both examples of how he is an active president. Since Obama has been the president many have used the phrase “Thanks Obama” when things don’t go their way. Instead of taking this to heart, he has actually made a video about it. Also, during one of his appearances on Jimmy Kimmel, he read mean tweets about himself; if he was not comfortable or enjoyed the office he has, he would not be doing such a thing. This optimistic attitude is what makes him positive instead of negative. Overall, Obama has shown himself to be an active-positive president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBhM2wo2BQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDocnbkHjhI

            No, I do not feel that President Obama’s active-positive character type makes him an effective president for his time; I feel that an active-negative would be better fit. I believe this character type would be more beneficial for our time period because of the gridlock in Congress. An active-positive acknowledges when he has accomplished something whereas an active-negative does not think he did everything he could have done and never feels as though he has accomplished anything. This would be better for us as a country because he would constantly be trying to improve the gridlock and get legislation passed rather than doing one thing at a time, not doing anything extra once he realized he has gotten what he wanted. This drive would possibly be the factor to get Congress functioning again and maybe not have the opposite party agree not to pass an of his legislation.

            I agree with Alyse where voters don’t really know about this theory so it won’t be useful in who they think will be the better president. Also, this theory does not really define the person before they take office because once they are in the position and have the power of the president, the qualities they once had or hadn’t had might come into perspective and change his characterization. Ultimately, I think voters’ minds will not change about what type of president they will be looking for based off of Barber’s theory; they will vote for who they think “will be the one that will help us and get things done.”

Obama; Character Type

     In my opinion I think that Obama is a mixture between a passive-positive and a active-positive president, but overall more leaning towards active so that is what I will prove. A positive-active president was described under Barber's theory as having high self-esteem, enjoys the job, is flexible and likes to compromise. This president wants to see results and may fail when he can't get people to see his way. To me, this describes Obama accurately. Before Obama even entered office, he promised that he would try and push for compromising between parties and make bipartisan policy. He also wasn't afraid to compromise with tax cuts for republicans and other things. He also really likes the job from what I can see, which in tern makes him positive. He's always talking to the public or even making funny videos about himself like the "Thanks Obama" one. This attitude allows for him to have confidence in his decisions and not care too much about what his party thinks. For example, his party and others gave him an immense amount of backlash for health care reform but he kept pushing for it with no regards for his approval ratings. This shows that he is active. Also, not being satisfied with just getting the country out of recession and wanting to push for healthcare also shows that he is active. Another example is Osama Bin Laden, Obama chose to be risky and go after him whereas maybe a more passive president would have opted not to do so. Last but not least he is active because he choses personal and close encounters. He calls lots of people, had drinks/played gold with the Speaker and even went to Congress himself which is rare. The reason I think he is also passive is because he doesn't use his evolutionary powers very well or often to get things done, he just uses his enumerated powers well.


This picture depicts Obama having lunch with Republican Senators showing his wants for compromise and an example of his personal encounters.



     Obama does not have the right "character" to fit our current government. A negative-active president would suit our mixed government better. The reasoning behind this is that nothing gets done these days. A major reason for that is that the parties do not want to compromise. In a perfect world a president who is active-positive would be the best because government needs compromise to work but now parties do not want to do this. This then calls for a negative-active president who is ambitious and is never satisfied. They constantly want to get things done and seeks power. If congress is being inefficient then the president needs to take charge and try and move things along.

     For the upcoming election I don't think this theory is useful and voters don't really know about it therefore not one of these character types will be what the voters are looking for. Also a lot of qualities within this theory can't be previously known and could change once the person comes into power. Without regards to this theory I think voters will be looking for a president not like Obama since his approval ratings are very low, meaning someone with different views. I think that voters will still be looking for the usual, a well spoken president that is good at keeping up with the media and is experienced. Hopefully the voters will be looking for an active president that seems like he really wants to get things done and will stop at nothing to get the government in higher gear than in its current state.





Obama - Barber Theory

Based on Obama's character and ability to accomplish goals within politics, I would have to characterize him as something new, rather than the predefined Barber theory characterizations. As a President, Obama is active-neutral in his character. Although he may try and he puts a significant amount of effort into his work as the Executive, Obama cannot accomplish much. This is not all his fault however. During his first and second terms, Democrats controlled Congress, and now with the control shifted to the Republicans, compromise is no longer an option. Obama may speak to the Republicans about passing legislation and meeting goals, but they do not want to negotiate and make his job much more difficult than it previously was. For example of his activeness, Obama tried to solve the government shutdown with Boehner, and avoid the fiscal cliff. This shows he has the drive to achieve goals, even if they aren't met. This may lower his self esteem but at other times when he acomplishes something, such as passing "Obamacare", his self esteem rises because that is the achievement he will be remembered for. When others approve of Obama, he puts more effort into legislation it seems and then he tries to have more passed. This puts Obama somewhere in the middle between active-negative and active-positive, which sums up to neutral. Also, Obama feels both stress and love for his job. He wants to help the American people it seems, but the constant turmoil of Capitol Hill takes a toll on him, reducing his effectiveness as a leader and as the image of the Presidency. The bickering of Congress and refusal to agree is not entirely Obama's fault. Politcal parties have become so polarized that compromise is almost impossible, and the divisions within parties only adds to the chaos, such as the Tea Party within the Republican party. In 2016, voters need to see an active-positive President. The new President needs to ensure that he passes lots of favorable legislation so that the people have renewed confidence in the government, which many claim is Obama's fault. Obama is not an effective President but it is not his fault completely. The times and pressure of the country's issues have produced problems that any Executive would have trouble handling, and Obama has tried to solve them to the best of his abilities. Overall, Obama can be characterized as an active-neutral Executive that can handle the times to the best of his ability but they have not agreed with him even with his effort.

Obama's Character

Based on Barber's theory, Obama would be categorized as active positive, but in actuality, he is aiming to be active positive but is struggling to reach any success. In his first term, Obama's naïvety restricted him from achieving his goals. As president of the United States, Obama is the most powerful man in the free world yet fails to exert any authority. He campaigned on promises of change and bipartisanship but was introduced into office with an economic recession and republicans that refused to put the country's advancement over their pride. Rather than, essentially, letting his opposers know who's boss, he took a trip to Capitol Hill and talked to Republicans that refused to budge. The action of meeting with Congressmen proved he aspired to unite America, and this was his attempt to be active but he failed. Despite having powers granted in the constitution, the powers a president has changes depending on the person holding office and Obama lacked the ability to take charge and attain control. Obama had confidence in his ability and wanted to deal with bigger things than the economy; he wanted to make a legacy and that would not be possible when he's focused on banks. He tried to be active again, by golfing and having secret meetings with Boehner, but he did not succeed and the bipartisan compromise shattered. This, however, does not mean Obama's entire presidency is a failure; many seem to forget he is the reason Osama Bin Laden is dead. Citizens loved Obama and his story, and Obama fed off this. His optimism never quivered and even in his lowest points, he preached about hope. Overall, he's a good guy but like Sarah said, he entirely lacks the aggression and intimidation necessary for a president to be effective and efficient. He fails to use the power of persuasion and because of that, he will continue to be someone who's just trying to be active positive. In order to be successful in this time, Obama needs to man up and lay down some rules. Republicans are yelling "you lie" during his speeches because they do not fear him. Playing the good guy role only works when you're dealing with an open minded Congress, not when the political climate is at its harshest and the government is divided. The president is supposed to seem larger than life, but Obama's too nice and innocent to accomplish the great ideas he has in mind. Due to his passivity, voters are looking for a president that will do whatever it takes to get something done. At this point, a ruthless, relentless leader is what the nation wants.

Obama's Presidential Character

     Based on James Barber's theory on presidential character, Barack Obama could be described as a passive-positive president.  By definition, a passive-positive character type is driven by hope and optimism, and a strive for cooperation. Downsides of this are the fact that they typically have low self esteem and are easily discouraged, which is masked by their superficial optomism.  Obama shows strong signs of these qualities.  In the beginning of his presidency, he had a difficult and disappointing meeting with opposing Congressmen.  To the press afterwards, he remarked that the meeting was "wonderful" and that he "continues to be optimistic".  This was obviously a cover-up of what he was really feeling about the meeting.  After being torn apart verbally by the people you are supposed to be compromising with, nobody would really have that good of an attitude.  He hides his real feelings though superficial  enthusiasm, as any passive-positive would do.  Also, passive positives have a soft spot and just want to be loved.  The same is true for Obama, who was under the impression that all of America loved him, until he got the wake-up call of the Midterm Elections, which left him in shock and sadness.  Passive-positives also have a great deal of optimism, which shows in Obama's campaign movement titled "Change" and "Hope".

     Passive-positive character type is not the best fit for our political climate.  With our current divided government, we cannot afford having a president who is not persuasive or assertive.  Obama is not aggressive and can't assert his power well.  The only area he executes well in is in his work as Commander in Chief, simply because there are not many restrictions or the threat of opposition to set him back.  In normal legislature and policy making, he cannot persuade well enough or assert his power effectively.  This passive disposition and inability to intimidate makes him seem like a joke to Congressmen and big time CEOs, who at one time failed to show up to a speech Obama made about certain banks.  For the 2016 election, we cannot elect another passive positive president who doesn't get the respect that someone in his position deserves.  An active positive president would be the best fit for president because they will be active enough to really achieve for the legislature they want to be passed and for the respect any president deserves.  However, they should not be completely active positive, as there are good elements in each character type.  A combination of active positive (in general), the strive for cooperation of a passive positive, the aggression and energy of an active negative, and the protection of the rights and proper ways executed by passive negatives would make the best presidential candidate for any time period.

The pictures I chose portray the difference between what Obama puts out to the public, his superficial optimism like in the "Hope" campaign, and his true inside conflicts with self esteem he encounters when he can't achieve the results he desires.                                            

Obama's Tricky Character

      Defining Obama's character is quite tricky. He, at first would appear to have the Active-Positive character, but he may also have the Active-Negative character. Since it is such a close call, there must be a kind of neutral character. Picture the President's character like a political compass. A president can be more active or lean less active, or they can be more positive or a little bit more negative. However, on the compass, the closer a president is to the x-axis or the y-axis or the origin of it, the more neutral they will be. Obama seems to try to remain as optimistic as possible. One example of this was, according to PBS Frontline, when he tried to remain optimistic after going to the Republican Caucus in Congress to find out that they wouldn't budge. Staying optimistic was only in Obama's character. He also felt satisfaction whenever he got something accomplished. He also tried to compromise with Republicans and he did that by talking to them in their own congressional caucus and by trying to compromise with John Boehner to avoid the Fiscal cliff. However at the same time, it appears as if he felt discouraged by the Congress and Republicans in the House. He really seemed to be discouraged and, at times a little power hungry in order to take action, which are signs that he has a negative attitude. He also at times is very partisan as shown by his weekly address on February 14'th as shown below, which shows negativity. However, that is a contradiction in that he tries to be as optimistic as possible, which puts his personality in that neutral zone as mentioned earlier. Obama also is definitely an active president. He is very ambitious in that he was, at the beginning of his term, trying to pass bill after bill, and then, according to PBS Frontline, tried to pass Obama care. He, at times, left things up to congress to get things done, but he uses his executive agencies and he suggests bills to Congress in order to take a lot of action. It is for that reason that I say he is active. Also, since he is active while having a neutral, but leaning positive personality based off of his actions, he is an Active-Neutral President. If he were to be in just one quadrant, he would most likely be an Active-Positive president. However, this will not make him useful in the current political climate in Washington. This is because he can be very aggressive towards the GOP and veto any bills they try to pass, which will result in less getting done. Also, Obama can be passive at times when he needs to be active. He also tries to bring compromise where the is none, which is a sign of a weaker leader when he can't bring compromise. It is due to his personality of being an aggressive leader when we need more of a passive leader and his little flaws in leadership skills that I say Obama's character is not a good fit for the current political climate. He especially did not help when he vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill. Also, he at times uses executive orders to get things done when he should use congress, which bad because he may choose to govern by executive orders instead of laws through congress because of how he is an aggressive leader. Therefore, because he is a bit too active with his leadership, his character is not the character in a  president we need in this political climate.

Now, for 2016, the voters should look for a president that is passive-positive. A passive positive president is one that is agreeable and cooperative, which is what both sides like to see. That was what helped Clinton gain a lot of popularity. They will also help to get rid of partisanship and will not be personally assertive by leaving things up to congress and to compromise. They will also help to keep the country optimistic by being optimistic himself. They may even help to get the economy going by letting compromise take place. However, this whole theory may not be useful to the average voter that will look for issues and vote based on them and not personality. Also, it will depend on the voter, because as we learned there are different types of voters, some of which will vote based off of which candidate looks more appealing. So to most voters, Barber's theory will not help them choose a president.

Inside Obama's Presidency

  The character type that best describes President Obama is active positive.  I agree with Ally's analysis of Barack Obama, in which he has high self-esteem, enjoys his job, and has person goals.  These characteristics are all found in an active positive president.  Although Obama has moved around Barber's chart depending on the time of his presidency he always seems to come back to active positive.  When Obama first came to office he was extremely hopeful looking for a bipartisan government and wanted to get things done, regardless if those things changed his approval ratings.  Two instances when Obama had this in mindset was in passing Obamacare and capturing Osama Bin Laden.  Many of his advisors told him that it would be a risk doing both, but Obama was confident and put his high approval ratings to use.  Since Obama did not care about his approval ratings it shows that he had high self-esteem and a positive lookout. Also, by setting out these personal goals and conquering them it shows how he is active positive in both foreign affairs and the United States government.  As Obama came up for re-election he started to shift to ensure votes, but came back to his usual active positive self as soon as he was safe in the White House for his second term.  

   I strongly agree with Ally's example of Obama making fun of himself and showing humor with his job in his "Thanks Obama" video.  The video showed that Obama is not sad or aggressive even with his approval rating dropping.  It shows that Obama likes his job and feels comfortable enough to make a public joke about himself, which is another key sign of an active positive president. 

   In the gridlock that the United States is currently in Obama's character type makes him extremely effective.  With a split government, Congress is not going to get much done, so the President has to step up and be active, successful, and have a flexible style.  Theses are all characteristics of a active positive president, and therefore of Obama.  Obama was successful in his goals of healthcare and capturing Osama Bin Laden.  He was also very active in passing a healthcare reform as he travelled the country to spend word about it and share his confidence in it.  Obama has a very flexible style, moving away from bipartisan when he saw nothing was getting done but still keeping in mind what Republicans look for with his own legislation.  Overall, to get any legislation passed a President has to be active positive in the current gridlock government.  With that said voters should be looking for an active positive president in 2016 to ensure that legislation is still passed and the government won't go through any shutdown because of Democratic and Republican disagreements. 

    

A 5 Year Old Presidental Expert?

Meet Macey! A 5 year old little girl who knows more about Presidents than I do. :)

Inside Obama's Presidency

I believe that the character type most closely represented by President Obama is passive-positive. A passive-positive president is one who, due to his/her search for affection, tries to be very cooperative and agreeable. This type of president is characterized by the hope that they exhibit, but they also battle low self-esteem and superficial optimism. Obama resembles this typology in many of the actions he takes. One extremely notable example was his easygoing reaction to the banker scandal, as seen in the Frontline documentary. Though he had set up an excellent opportunity to reprimand the bankers when he held the meeting with them, he instead told the men he was there to help, so that he would not become involved in conflict. His reaction here clearly shows his fear of disagreement and putting himself in a bad position, and demonstrates Barber’s passive-positive character type. Another example of Obama’s typology is his attempt to negotiate with Boehner when faced with the task of combating the financial crisis that resulted in the fiscal cliff. Obama sought out Boehner so that the men could be in agreeance with legislation, and this willingness to cooperate is definitely a passive-positive characteristic.

Ultimately, it can be seen through the failures that have resulted from submissive instances such as these that Obama’s typology is not suitable for today’s political climate. In the article “Power Lessons for Obama” on The Atlantic’s website, a reference was made to political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s belief that the context of the political time period plays a role in a president’s ability to utilize his inherent powers (which, as Neustadt believed, are key factors in a president’s overall ability to persuade). In today’s divided political climate, a passive-positive president such as Obama is weakened in this utilization– instead, a more active president is needed. The divided political climate is much more suited to a strong, directed leader that would be able to effectively use their inherent powers, since they are primarily concerned with the advancement of their own political goals and do not yield to roadblocks such as partisan division. A more compromised-focused president like Obama is limited in his usage of these powers because of his affection-seeking personality, and he is stretched too thin by trying to appeal to everybody. Therefore, voters should look for an active-positive president in 2016. With high self-esteem, valuation of productivity, and well-defined personal goals that propel the person to accomplishing policy, the president would act as a firm leader who can set goals and accomplish them. Though they may sometimes experience difficulty in seeing things a different way, an intense focus can potentially lead people down a certain path and help direct people toward a common goal.

I agree with Kayla in her thought that voters probably cannot use Barber’s theory. As she states in her response, you cannot make any initial judgments about someone using this theory (especially before seeing them perform in office) because successful presidents exhibit an array of personalities that can be useful in different circumstances. The theory is, however, good for examining past and current presidencies. With the help of Barber and Neustadt’s theories, we are able to determine how powerful a president really is – and in the case of Obama, it can be determined that his personality is ineffective for the time period, thus weakening himself and his abilities to persuade and thus pass legislation.

Inside Obama's Presidency

The character type of Barack Obama is active positive. The active positive president is one who has high self esteem, likes their job being the president, and has personal goals in order to be successful. One example from the documentary, "Inside Obama's Presidency" that shows he is an active positive president is Obama took the opportunity and chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, when he had inside information about his location. This was a risky job for Obama to decide to try to accomplish because if the mission was failed, Bin Laden could potentially attack the United States and the soldiers sent on the mission would end up being killed. Even though his idea was not fully supported by the rest of government, he had high hopes in the idea and believed it would be successful so he went for it anyway. His since of high self esteem and personal goals make him a active positive president. Also, Obama is very active in government trying to get as much legislation as possible passed. When Obama first came up with the idea of ObamaCare, Congress was immediately against it. However, Obama constantly visited around the country to give speeches as to why the reform needs to be passed and did not stop, or give up on the idea of the bill, until it ended up being passed. His dedication and drive to get even this one bill passed which he strongly believed in, is what makes him a active positive president. Another good example of how Obama has high self esteem is he is constantly making jokes even about himself. He knows that the whole country makes the joke that is anything goes wrong they say, "Thanks Obama". Because of this, even President Obama made a video of himself where when he couldn't accomplish what he was trying to do he said, "Thanks Obama". This funny example shows he is not really afraid of what others think of him, and he will even joke around with him. He has high self esteem which makes him a active positive president.

 

 

Obama's character type is good for the current political climate because since the legislative and executive branches are separate as far as their parties and the Republicans are so strict, if Obama did not push for legislation he liked to get passed, nothing would and there would be gridlock in the government. Also, his high self esteem is very important because he has so many critics because of his ideas such as the Health Care Reform Act, so since he is so positive all the time in government as well as what he believes he does, that is important for him, in order to keep the country running. In 2016 voters are going to be looking for a president who is similar to Obama, but tries to be a little less involved so more compromises can be made. The best type of president for the country would be a passive positive president because this type of president will still be optimistic and trying to get things done in the government, but at the same time they will be wanting the support from Congress and to be accepted, so they will make more compromises in order to get legislation passed, which will be viewed as positive by the public as well as by the rest of the public.

 

 

 

Obama Analysis

The character type that best fits President Barack Obama is passive positive.  As described by Barber, the passive positive character type is very hopeful and optimistic. These types of people are constantly looking for others' approval and are willing to adapt in order to make others happy. As a new president, Obama was frequently trying to adapt to impress people and win their approval. A good example of this is when he submitted a budget to Congress that would appeal to Republicans in hopes of getting the Republicans’ respect and approval. Obama’s efforts were unsuccessful and his budget was still shot down by the Republicans making President Obama very upset and feel insecure. This began the cycle of Obama attempting to adapt to the political climate to please everyone, getting shot down and pushed around, and then becoming very optimistic about future things to come. This cycle can be seen repeatedly throughout his presidency. Obama is not very assertive and he does not fully take control of certain issues due to his low self-esteem. When the issue of beginning a mission to find and kill Osama Bin Laden came up, Obama asked others for recommendations about what to do instead of making a confident decision on his own. Also, anytime something doesn’t go right, Obama stays incredibly hopeful. His entire campaign for the presidency was based on hope and change as seen in the photos.

 Being a passive positive president is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not a good character type to fit in the current political climate which is most likely the reason some people think Obama is doing a poor job. Obama strives to be an active president and he makes many attempts to be active such as his healthcare reform, proactively submitting a budget that he thought would please Republicans and setting up meetings with Speaker John Boehner to work on the Grand Bargain. If all of these actions had been successful, then Obama might have been able to be classified as active positive. The factor that prevents Obama from being as active as he strives to be is the tough political climate he is in. He is forced to work with the Tea Party which is nearly impossible considering how stubborn they can be. Republicans in Congress make it very difficult for Obama to achieve much and they often overstep their boundaries. Obama is not as intimidating as past presidents such asPresident Johnson, so Congress feels that they are able to push Obama around a little more. Also, Obama lacks the ability to persuade well as mentioned in Neustadt’s reading. If Obama is unable to persuade the Republicans to act a certain way or make certain decisions, then he is not exercising the full power of the presidency. Neustadt would not consider Obama a powerful president for this reason.

 Given the current political climate, voters should be looking for an active negative candidate for the 2016 election. Active negative character types are people who always work tremendously hard to get things done and never feel fully satisfied with what they have accomplished. They tackle projects aggressively and will never feel like they have done enough. Others tend to fear these types of people, but also respect them for all of their hard work. An active negative person would work well in the current political climate because they will not allow themselves to be pushed around by others in the government. Instead, this type of president would assert all of his power and use it to make the decisions he deems best for the country without having anyone question him. Obama’s failure to assert his presidential power has made the office of the president seem weak. It would be very beneficial to the country to have an active negative president who can get many things done and restore power to the presidency.

Barber’s theory is logical, but it would not be helpful to voters. Though one may be able to predict what type of president someone will be by their personality, you cannot fully judge whether or not that person will be successful as president solely on this theory. There is an argument for each of the four character types of why that type of person would make a good president. Some of our country’s greatest presidents have all been classified as different character types. The character type does not make any candidate less qualified for the job as president. Voters should not use this theory to make their decision on who to elect. As I mentioned earlier today in class, though the theory does not necessarily predict which character types make for good presidents, it does provide good guidelines for analyzing presidents after they have been in office.