A Lament for the Era of Eisenhower
After reading about Eisenhower and discussing his approach to governing in Thurday’s class, I couldn’t help but lament for his style of leadership. His apparently aloof nature on legislative issues provided the opportunity to publicly engaging in divisive partisan affairs, a fact that helped to maintain his popularity. And yet, the man did not succumb to the folly of 19th century presidents by becoming subservient to the legislature. His leadership brought tranquility on the domestic level, as he accepted the New Deal, while still avoiding unparalleled increase in government. Simultaneously, Eisenhower did assert leadership on the international level, avoiding the American tendency for isolationism after war. He sought to contain communism, while still reducing the excessive military spending of the outgoing administration (and thus he succeeded in provoking an immediate all-out arms race) and avoiding a potentially costly war in Southeast Asia. Really, what is not to like about the man?
And so, here is the part where I wish for the past, for a day in which the press did not speculate on the President’s every move, and the President did not have to live up to the rather impossible expectations the American people now place on him. I truly do not think that we can ever recover such a style of governing, because the American people simply will not allow it. If a President’s actions are not visible, and the President does not present some vision or agenda, our rather uneducated and often manipulated public will regard him as an impotent administrator and leader (at least as far as legislative matters are concerned). And so alas, I afraid the days of Eisenhower are past, barring some unforeseen power shift in American government. I would like to blame this reality on our largely ignorant populous, which seeks to find personal representation in a President (rather than a district or state rep.); a President who realistically represents 300 million people. Of course, I admit my own hypocrisy on this issue at times, and I recognize that change in the American public is unlikely. That being said, I end this blog by again lamenting the loss of a leadership style like Eisenhower’s, for his less partisan, yet subtly assertive leadership would bring a refreshing air to the tumultuous and highly partisan nature of the office today.
Aaron's Blog 
I too share your sentiments on the loss of this leadership style. However, I am more optimistic. I know I am in the minority when I say this, but I believe that reverting to a less engaged executive is possible. If a president could explain that he/she perceived the role of the president to be more restrained with deference given to Congress, the electorate would know what to expect from that executive. I think a heavy reshaping of expectaions of the president is needed but is possible. By the means of word and actions, future presidents could and should take up the initiative to put the presidential role into a different framework which lends itself to a leadership more like that of Eisenhower. I think the appeal of that style exists. What is needed is a clear articulation of the position and subsequent implementation of the practice.