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.
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.”
"ltimately, 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.”" Could these connect?
ReplyDelete