A Description of the Attributes a Presidential Candidate Should Have Essay Example for Free

A Description of the Attributes a Presidential Candidate Should Have Essay The American President represents much more than an institution. To people around the world he is representative of their hopes and fears for the future and is the focus of intense feelings and emotions. The voting process represents an extremely significant period in American politics where US citizens vote for their President. Their votes are reflective not only of the candidate they like and respect the most, but are also an indication of the person that they predict will be the most effective once in office. Despite this, their decisions are based on the candidate’s performance prior to, and during, the election process. This performance that may not necessarily be a good indication of their actual ability to run the country; the qualities needed to become a President are very different from those required to be a successful President once in office. This paper will address the attributes that are commonly cited as being necessary for someone to become a President and will dispute a number of these, offering the opinion that they are not necessarily the correct basis on which judgments should be made. See more:  Masters of Satire: John Dryden and Jonathan Swift Essay The skills and methods by which an elective may become a President are explored and will be compared to those that are actually required and valued once in office. In the United States the absence of a monarchy entails that the President often becomes the object for nationalistic or monarchical type sentiments that people in countries like England would direct at their Queen. The President is undoubtedly the most important figure in the US and holds several roles including Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, Head of the National Party and Chief Legislator. However, like the Queen in England, his supreme court have opposing powers to him and thus limit his ability to carry out some of his roles. Many people recognize one of the most important attributes for a Presidential candidate to be is a good, strong decision maker with a clear vision and direction. Candidates often use the election process to discuss problems that are evident in the way in which the country is currently being run and make willful claims as to how they would do things differently. They swear that they will have the backbone to take decisions that Presidents before them have failed to take. These type of statements appeal to the American public as they provide hope for a better future and an expectation that things will change for the better. The truth, however, is very different. Congressmen have their own electorate, interest groups and opinions on how the country should be run. The President is actually very limited in his ability to command congress to do anything and thus, the implementation of his decisions is actually a very difficult thing to achieve. What is, perhaps, more important than an ability to make decisions is an ability to persuade and influence others. If you ask people if they would vote for someone who uses strong powers of persuasion to sway their vote they would probably say no, they would prefer to vote for some who have a strong direction and vision. They wouldn’t like to feel that clever vocabulary or some type of sales approach has influenced them. No, they prefer to consider themselves people who have made a good decision based on the facts. The truth, however, that they probably were persuaded and swayed during part of the election process. This is not such a bad thing. The ability to persuade others is crucial to a successful President as he needs to be capable, through whatever means necessary, to convince others to carry out the decisions he makes. It is therefore clear that, whilst a clear vision and direction is important, what is more important both in gaining the role and completing it successfully is an ability to persuade and influence. The person who manages to influence others will do the better job, once in power it will help him get things done and in becoming President it will help him win. A further attribute that the American public will look for when selecting a Presidential candidate is a consistency of purpose. People want a President who will have courage to commit to their course of action and achieve the plans they lay out during the electoral process. However, again this may not be an attribute that delivers success once a candidate is in power and we often see very different expectations of the President. President George Bush can be cited as a prime example of this. George Bush was clear and strong in his plan to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussain, so much so that he took the United States to war. However, he later faced a great deal of criticism for his actions and many camps argue that he should have admitted he was wrong and should withdraw US troops from the US. His commitment to action was no longer valued. This paper is not intended to debate this point and pass judgment on George Bush’s actions but is using this example to show that the attributes that people may look for when selecting a President; consistency and relentless purpose may not always be what they expect once they are in power. An attribute that features heavily in people’s decision when selecting a President is realism, they like a family man whose values and emotions may seem to reflect their own. They want to feel that their President, as much as possible, has the same feelings and fears that they do and will thus act in a way that is in their interests. Whether appropriate or not, the past and present personal life of a Presidential candidate features heavily during the election process and people look for someone who has lived their life in a good and true manner. Whilst such attributes provide an indication of a person’s character and may be seen to represent the way in which they will behave once they are in power, they are not necessarily what people look for once their President are in power. They are more concerned with a person’s ability to cut themselves off emotionally from any decisions they make, distancing themselves from a situation in order to look at a bigger picture. The phrase â€Å"don’t mix business with pleasure† could not be more appropriate for a President in power. Once in the Whitehouse people consider the figurehead to be an American institution; he works for them. Personal life is no longer to be considered to be of relevance and, in many respects; they do not wish a President to show feelings as these can be construed as a weakness. Other commonly cited attributes that people discuss when they are asked what they look for in a President include honesty, integrity, leadership and intelligence. These types of attributes entail that the opinions people form of candidates prior to their election, and thus the benchmark against which they are judged once they are elected, can never be met; they are all extremely subjective values. A candidate who is elected as a new President, a replacement for the incumbent, will always be heralded as the next big thing. The nation will feel strong hope for the future of America and will truly believe that things will change for the better. However, the likelihood is that these expectations can never really be met. Time will change the position that the President occupies in people’s minds; what people perceive as good leadership now will almost certainly change over the course of the four years between elections. As such, these attributes cannot accurately be used as representations of how well a candidate will perform once in office. This paper has addressed a number of the common attributes that people cite as important within a Presidential candidate. Through exploring the difference between winning an election and actually running a country, the flawed nature of the factors upon which many votes are cast is revealed. Whilst people recognize they are voting for someone who will run their country, they rarely seem to consider the attributes that will be valued in this role, instead focusing on those required to get there. Fighting a Presidential campaign is very different from being a President. Along these lines more emphasis should be placed on attributes such as attention to military threats and needs, the economy and American interests, both at home and abroad.

Chinua Achebes Things Fall Apart †Finding Unoka in the Mirror :: Things Fall Apart Essays

Things Fall Apart – Finding Unoka in the Mirror I wish I could say that the character Okonkwo, in the novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, is very similar to myself, but I would be lying. Okonkwo is filled with many admirable traits: drive, ambition, goals, and his ability to overcome through his constant productivity. Okonkwo had the determination to become a great man, and even with the odds against him, he succeeded. â€Å"With a father like Unoka, Okonkwo did not have the start in life which many young men had. He neither inherited a barn nor a title, or even a young wife. But in spite of these disadvantages, he had begun even in his father’s lifetime to lay the foundations of a prosperous future† (18). Most of his accomplishments were despite his father, whom Okonkwo loathed, but with whom I connected. In the novel, I relate more to Okonkwo’s father, Unoka, a much more laid back character. Like Unoka, I am in love with life, lazy, not worried about tomorrow, and deeply in debt. Unoka had a great appreciation for the moment. For instance, â€Å"he loved this season of the year, when the rains had stopped and the sun rose every morning with dazzling beauty. And it was not too hot either†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (5). Such a description makes me want to lay down drowsy in the grass and enjoy the beauty of the day, for as Unoka â€Å"loved it all† (5), I too love it all (5)! What I would give for another summer day to simply nap, sprawled on my stomach in the grass of my back yard, feeling the warmth of the sun and security of a newborn napping in its mother’s arms. How deeply do I love these moments of drowsiness and warmth nature supplies her children. I imagine Unoka had similar experiences through playing the flute. â€Å"He was very good on his flute, and his happiest moments were the two or three moons after the harvest when the village musicians brought down their instruments, hung above the fireplace. Unoka would play with them, his face beaming wit h blessedness and peace† (4). Unoka and I enjoy the simple things life has to offer. Perhaps this appreciation is rooted in our struggle against society, one which demands the focus of our lives to lie beyond the setting sun. However, there must come a day when you ask yourself, will I even be alive tomorrow?

Romeo and Juliet Persuasive

Who Truly is to Blame? Choosing between telling the truth and keeping a secret are both hard decisions to make. In the play, Romeo and Juliet, these decisions can make or break a situation. The play is all about secrets kept and truths to be told, which end up causing the death of the star-crossed lovers. The story between the two lovers is that their affection for one another is a secret to each opposing houses. Was the secret worth keeping? As some characters helped disguise the love, others couldn’t keep it a secret.Romeo and Juliet were betrayed by a close friend who made plans that ended up fraudulent to both Romeo & Juliet, when the real job was to keep the love alive. Friar Lawrence is the definite reason for the deaths of the ill-fated lovers. Friar Lawrence was a helpful attribute to the secreted love affair. As he married Romeo & Juliet, he passionately supported their decision. â€Å"You shall not stay alone, till holy church incorporate two in one†(8 41). Friar gave true evidence to him supporting the marriage. If Friar had not thought he could keep the marriage a secret, why would he have performed the ceremony?If Friar had not supported the secret and prevented the love from occurring, the deaths of the paramours could have been prohibited. Friar Lawrence performing the ceremony just goes to show he did not put in mind what could happen to the safety of Romeo & Juliet. Friar Lawrence seemed to have a plan for Romeo to return back to his love. â€Å"Ascend to her chamber, hence and comfort her. But look thou shalt live till we can find a time to blaze you marriage, reconcile your friends, beg pardon of the prince, and call thee back with twenty hundred thousand times more joy than thou went’st forth in lamination†(863).Briefly, Friar showed his full plan for presenting Romeo & Juliet’s marriage to both the Capulet and Montague houses. In general, Friar should have either never agreed to the marriage or should have kept it a secret from everyone to prevent Romeo’s sudden banishment and Juliet’s heartbreak. Friar’s plan did not help as went planned, it damaged the situation. Therefore, Friar Lawrence contributed another reason why he is responsible for the death of Romeo & Juliet. Numerous people believe that Friar Lawrence was at the helm for the quietus of Romeo & Juliet, while others have a difference of opinion.People have confidence that Lord Capulet is to charge for the deaths. Capulet allegedly forced marriage upon Juliet causing her dejection. Also, Lord Capulet did not support Juliet’s decision to not marry Paris, being that he would disown his own pride and joy if she had chosen not to wed. Capulet’s dynamic ways made abounding people believe that he was the clue behind the deaths. However, Juliet’s father did attempt to postpone the exchange of vows to County Paris until he assumed Juliet was matured and prepared for t he burden of marriage.As stated, â€Å"My child is yet a stranger in the world, she hath not seen change for fourteen years; Let two more summers wither in their pride, ere we may think her ripe to be a bride†(769). For that matter, Capulet only tried to be a virtuous father and do what was best for his daughter, but easily letting pressure and royalty run his decisions. On the other hand, Friar Lawrence was secretive and unfaithful as a priest and close friend. Friar tried to repair every problem which in the end made nobody happy. Both the Montagues and Capulets have lost their beloveds from a far past feud.Was it all worth losing? Friar was censurable for the loss of Romeo & Juliet. To summarize, Friar Lawrence was 100% at fault for the deaths of Romeo & Juliet. Between his poorly thought out plans, the pain he caused Verona, and how untruthful he was as a priest, he, in fact, let down Romeo & Juliet. He may have wanted the best for everyone and to make all hap py, but he caused more problems than solutions. Consequently, all of the facts I have stated are tantamount to why Friar Lawrence is to blame for the unfortunate events.

The Third Voyage of Christopher Columbus

After his famous 1492 voyage of discovery, Christopher Columbus was commissioned to return a second time, which he did with a large-scale colonization effort which departed from Spain in 1493. Although the second journey had many problems, it was considered successful because a settlement was founded: it would eventually become Santo Domingo, capital of the present-day Dominican Republic. Columbus served as governor during his stay in the islands. The settlement needed supplies, however, so Columbus returned to Spain in 1496. Preparations for the Third Voyage Columbus reported to the crown upon his return from the New World. He was dismayed to learn that his patrons, Ferdinand and Isabella, would not allow the taking of slaves in the newly discovered lands. As he had found little gold or precious commodities for which to trade, he had been counting on selling native slaves to make his voyages lucrative. The King and Queen of Spain allowed Columbus to organize a third trip to the New World with the goal of resupplying the colonists and continuing the search for a new trade route to the Orient. The Fleet Splits Upon departure from Spain in May of 1498, Columbus split his fleet of six ships: three would make for Hispaniola immediately to bring desperately needed supplies, while the other three would aim for points south of the already explored Caribbean to search for more land and perhaps even the route to the Orient that Columbus still believed to be there. Columbus himself captained the latter ships, being at heart an explorer and not a governor. Doldrums and Trinidad Columbus’ bad luck on the third voyage began almost immediately. After making slow progress from Spain, his fleet hit the doldrums, which is a calm, hot stretch of ocean with little or no wind. Columbus and his men spent several days battling heat and thirst with no wind to propel their ships. After a while, the wind returned and they were able to continue. Columbus veered to the north, because the ships were low on water and he wanted to resupply in the familiar Caribbean. On July 31, they sighted an island, which Columbus named Trinidad. They were able to resupply there and continue exploring. Sighting South America For the first two weeks of August  1498, Columbus and his small fleet explored the Gulf of Paria, which separates Trinidad from mainland South America. In the process of this exploration, they discovered the Island of Margarita as well as several smaller islands. They also discovered the mouth of the Orinoco River. Such a mighty freshwater river could only be found on a continent, not an island, and the increasingly religious Columbus concluded that he had found the site of the Garden of Eden. Columbus fell ill around this time and ordered the fleet to head to Hispaniola, which they reached on August 19. Back in Hispaniola In the roughly two years since Columbus had been gone, the settlement on Hispaniola had seen some rough times. Supplies and tempers were short and the vast wealth that Columbus had promised settlers while arranging the second voyage had failed to appear. Columbus had been a poor governor during his brief tenure (1494-1496) and the colonists were not happy to see him. The settlers complained bitterly, and Columbus had to hang a few of them in order to stabilize the situation. Realizing that he needed help governing the unruly and hungry settlers, Columbus sent to Spain for assistance. It was also here where Antonio de Montesinos is remembered to have given an impassioned and impactful sermon. Francisco de Bobadilla Responding to rumors of strife and poor governance on the part of Columbus and his brothers, the Spanish crown sent Francisco de Bobadilla to Hispaniola in 1500. Bobadilla was a nobleman and a knight of the Calatrava order, and he was given broad powers by the Spanish crown, superseding those of Colombus. The crown needed to rein in the unpredictable Colombus and his brothers, who in addition to being tyrannical governors were also suspected of improperly gathering wealth. In 2005, a document was found in the Spanish archives: it contains first-hand accounts of the abuses of Columbus and his brothers. Columbus Imprisoned Bobadilla arrived in August 1500, with 500 men and a handful of native slaves that Columbus had brought to Spain on a previous voyage: they were to be freed by royal decree. Bobadilla found the situation as bad as he had heard. Columbus and Bobadilla clashed: because there was little love for Columbus among the settlers, Bobadilla was able to clap him and his brothers in chains and throw them in a dungeon. In October 1500, the three Columbus brothers were sent back to Spain, still in shackles. From getting stuck in the doldrums to being shipped back to Spain as a prisoner, Columbus’ Third Voyage was a fiasco. Aftermath and Importance Back in Spain, Columbus was able to talk his way out of trouble: he and his brothers were freed after spending only a few weeks in prison. After the first voyage, Columbus had been granted a series of important titles and concessions. He was appointed Governor and Viceroy of the newly discovered lands and was given the title of Admiral, which would pass to his heirs. By 1500, the Spanish crown was beginning to regret this decision, as Columbus had proven to be a very poor governor and the lands he had discovered had the potential to be extremely lucrative. If the terms of his original contract were honored, the Columbus family would eventually siphon off a great deal of wealth from the crown. Although he was freed from prison and most of his lands and wealth were restored, this incident gave the crown the excuse they needed to strip Columbus of some of the costly concessions that they had originally agreed to. Gone were the positions of Governor and Viceroy and the profits were reduced as well. Columbus’ children later fought for the privileges conceded to Columbus with mixed success, and legal wrangling between the Spanish crown and the Columbus family over these rights would continue for some time. Columbus’ son Diego would eventually serve for a time as Governor of Hispaniola due to the terms of these agreements. The disaster that was the third voyage essentially brought to a close the Columbus Era in the New World. While other explorers, such as Amerigo Vespucci, believed that Columbus had found previously unknown lands, he stubbornly held to the claim that he had found the eastern edge of Asia and that he would soon find the markets of India, China, and Japan. Although many at court believed Columbus to be mad, he was able to put together a fourth voyage, which if anything was a bigger disaster than the third one. The fall of Columbus and his family in the New World created a power vacuum, and the King and Queen of Spain quickly filled it with Nicolà ¡s de Ovando, a Spanish nobleman who was appointed governor. Ovando was a cruel but effective governor who ruthlessly wiped out native settlements and continued the exploration of the New World, setting the stage for the Age of Conquest. Sources: Herring, Hubert. A History of Latin America From the Beginnings to the Present.. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962 Thomas, Hugh. Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire, from Columbus to Magellan. New York: Random House, 2005.