The President: Guardian of the System, Essay Example

Unites States citizens truly believe that president must play the roles of chief executive, chief legislator, commander in chief, chief of the state and party leader. Moreover, people always believe in the election campaigns and promises made by various party leaders who are in hunt for president post. Even when one after another they do not fulfill even a portion of what they ‘intended’ to do, American citizens still hope that next year or next president will be better and more efficient. However, this reading evidently demonstrates how various presidents like Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, and others simply make their false promises, thus protecting the interest of corporative and capitalistic structures instead of fulfilling the expectations of millions American people.

The author clearly defines the president as a “salesman of the system”, for their major concerns are money, wealth, capitalism, and free-market. However, country leaders are the only ones who benefit from this policy. Presidents describe the investments of U.S. giant corporations as direct country interests abroad, thus they apt to defend them at all costs. However, the author evidently overthrows this claim, proving that these investments are of government and corporate interests only, thus regular citizens do not benefit from it. United States helped to destroy popular-based governments of various countries like Chile, Nicaragua, South Yemen, Iraq, Yugoslavia and others protecting the global free market interests. The author provides the description of President Ford, saying that it could actually apply to most of White House representatives: “He follows the judgment of the major international oil companies on oil problems in the same way that he amiably heeds the advice of other big businesses on the problems that interest them…He is… a solid believer in the business ideology of rugged individualism, free markets and price competition – virtues.”(Parenti, 232) In fact, I think this one of the major statements of the whole passage, for it clearly defines corporative interests of U.S. presidents. The president receives $400 000 annual salary, when he is totally well provided for and predominantly does not have to pay for anything. However, the author shows us how Ronal Reagan got a sumptuous estate in Ben Air, California, form “independently wealthy individuals” as an appreciation for his help. “Presidents are capable of trading favors for money as any influence-peddling, special-interest politician.”(Parenti, 232) Furthermore, the author provides us with examples of corruption, like when Nixon helped settling a multi-billion dollar suit against ITT and received a $400 000 donation in return; or when Bush Sr. received $900 000 from persons he later appointed to ambassadorships.

Another idea the author promotes in this chapter is the bifacial government, giving false promises in their hunt for leadership, power, and control, however, never fulfilling them. The author emphasizes the gap between rhetoric and policy calling the president a “chief liar”. He shows us how Nixon and Ford voiced for environmentalism, Vietnam veteran support, the plight of the elderly, and the needs of the poor, but eventually did the opposite by cutting the benefits to these programs. “President Jimmy Carter promised to reduce the military budget and arms sales; instead he increased both.”(Prenti, 234) President Reagan, for example, reduced veteran’s health care while praising the veterans. During his election campaign Bush Sr. was shouting for environment protection, thus being self-proposed “environment president”. However, he strictly opposed the international measures against ozone depletion and global warming. Bill Clinton’s motto “The courage to change” only sounded good and promising, but in fact the president was no really interested in changing anything. Eventually he cut human services and did nothing about greenhouse gases. “Clinton talked of world peace, but bombed Iraq on false pretexts.”(Parenti, 234) Moreover, most of the people Clinton appointed on various posts were of corporate background. For example, the ultraconservative republican Alan Greenspan was appointed as a chair of the Federal Reserve System.

In the rivalry between the federal government and the state’s local government, the federal system prevails and sets laws against the state’s freedom. Though back in the 1980’s Reagan administration tried to seemingly revitalize the state’s activity, it, consequently, increased the state’s burden for dealing with various social problems and diminished the federal funding. Years later, such states as Texas and Connecticut experiences struggles with the federal government concerning school testing and state’s mandatory investing into federally legislated programs. It is clear that the conservatives did their best to override the state’s progressive actions. The author provides us with the examples of nuclear plant emission standards, state food safety regulations, lawsuits, environmental protection, and medication purchases being limited or forbidden, if they contradict with the federal regulation system, however beneficial and advance they might have been. Therefore, one might argue that the conservative government was always following the plan that would benefit it financially, disregarding whether it was achieved by the supremacy of the federal government or the state’s power.

In conclusion, the president is elected by people, thus I believe he is supposed to serve those people, for there is always the reason why they choose him. People always have hope for better even if things are going even worse, thus they vote for new people, new ideas, and new programs. However, the presidents seems to only pretend serving the people, while actually satisfying giant corporations and private groups, who make significant ‘investments’ as appreciation. There will be no change coming from the top unless people make a base for fundamental reforms and mobilization.

Works Cited

Parenti, Michael. Democracy for the Few. 8^th ed. Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006.