Introduction:

The United States presidency is one of the most significant elected positions in the world,

potentially the most significant. However, the presidential leadership in America is not very easy

due to the separation of the powers of the government along with the checks and balances that

are placed in the constitution of the United States of America. Moving to future elections it is

important to ask what kind of characteristics and skills can be considered defining the ‘right’

president for a nation. This debate will explore five key indicators that can help us evaluate

potential presidential candidates: their capacity to lead nationally, their knowledge about the

governmental setting, how they fit in various scenarios, their expertise in international and

internal policies and policy, and their efficiency at retaining public support. These indicators are

not just theoretical constructs but real indicators that are built on past experiences and evidence

of presidents as analyzed by these authors. Analyzing each of these indicators in more detail

helps us understand what constitutes an effective president and how we may evaluate the

prospective contenders for this crucial position.

Ability to Provide National Leadership:

The cornerstone of presidential effectiveness lies in the ability to provide strong national

leadership. This encompasses having a clear vision for the country's future and the capacity to

articulate that vision in a way that resonates with the American people. "Strong presidents have

typically had a clear sense of where they want to lead the country and an ability to communicate

that vision effectively." (Patterson) The case of Ronald Reagan serves as a prime example.

Reagan's vision of smaller government, lower taxes, and a robust stance against communism was

clearly communicated and widely understood, even by those who disagreed with him. This

clarity of purpose enabled him to "alter the direction of domestic and foreign policy (Patterson.)"
 In contrast, Jimmy Carter, despite his intelligence and good intentions, lacked this

capacity. His infamous "crisis of confidence" speech, where he critiqued the American people's

attitude instead of providing a clear path forward, underscores how the absence of effective

leadership communication can undermine a presidency. However, national leadership is not just

about charisma or rhetorical skill. It also involves the ability to translate vision into action

(Coleman, Kevin J., et al). This requires working within the constraints of the American political

system, which brings us to our next point of debate: the president's understanding of the political

system.

Understanding of the Political System:

A president may have a compelling vision, but without a deep understanding of how the

American political system functions, that vision is unlikely to become reality (Shugart). The

president operates within a system of separate institutions that share power. This system of

checks and balances means that "significant presidential action typically depends on the approval

of Congress, the cooperation of the bureaucracy, and sometimes the acceptance of the judiciary.

(Patterson) The most successful presidents have been those who grasped this fundamental truth

and worked within it. Dwight D. Eisenhower, despite his military background had a keen

awareness of the need to build consensus. His observation that leadership is "persuasion, and

conciliation, and education, and patience" reflects a sophisticated understanding of the political

process (Patterson).

Conversely, presidents who have ignored or underestimated the importance of working

with Congress have often seen their agendas stall (Rossiter). Jimmy Carter's unilateral decision to

cut 19 water projects from his budget, ignoring the interests of members of Congress, set the tone
for a conflict-ridden relationship with the legislative branch. This misstep hampered his ability to

enact his policies throughout his term.

The powers of check in the presidency for instance, veto power has its limitations.

Although the possibility of a veto may force Congress to act in ways the president wants it to,

political scientist Richard Neustadt was of the view that it is equally little sign of strength; rather

it emerges when Congress rejects the ideas the president has proposed (Rossiter). This is evident

from President Obama’s experience in 2014 when he had to put his signature to the farm bill

legislation that he considered subpar. Hence when selecting a potential president, other than

considering his or her political ideology and proposed policies, one needs to also consider their

understanding of the workings of American government. Do they understand the art of

compromise? Can they build coalitions? Do they respect the roles and prerogatives of the other

branches of government? These questions are crucial in determining whether a candidate can

effectively lead within our system.

Adaptability to Circumstances:

The presidency is not a stagnant position; it functions in a vibrant context where domestic and

global conditions can shift significantly. Basically, presidential influence varies with

circumstance. “Some presidents govern during a time of peace and prosperity, while others take

their oath during crisis or scarcity (Walsh). Accordingly, the ‘right’ president must be able to

operate in and manage these new conditions (Patterson). Erwin Hargrove, a political scientist

recommends that resources can be limited or that vital issues are starting to emerge but they are

not yet acute. Such situations can actually act against the will of a president in terms of achieving

major policy shifts. Summing up in 1994, budget deficits and other factors beyond his control
kept President Clinton on the defensive, while he “had to play the hand that history had dealt” to

him.

However, being adaptable is not all about turning constraints into opportunities but also about

embracing opportunities. This is evident in the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his first

few months in the White House during the Great Depression he introduced the most

comprehensive social reforms in American history. Indeed, Congress was quick to approve

nearly every New Deal measure he put forward to them. Again, situations like these generated a

public and congressional sentiment for drastic action and Roosevelt responded accordingly.

Likewise, Lyndon B. Johnson continuing the goal of the civil rights movement after the

assassination of President Kennedy successfully passed civil rights and social welfare

legislations in 1964 and 1965. Flexibility also means being aware when one is out of his/her

depth and learning on the job. The presidents are most powerful in their first months in office;

and this is when they are least experienced. This is the so-called ‘honeymoon period’ which is

also characterized by both, opportunities and threats. A versatile president will leverage this time

effectively and put forward good ideas that are feasible in tackling the country’s challenges.

Skill in Foreign and Domestic Policy:

The American presidency is distinct in that it serves as both the head of state and the head

of government, necessitating expertise in both internal and international issues. Based on the

research of political scientist Aaron Wildavsky, Patterson observes that although there are no

longer "two presidencies" (foreign and domestic) that are as clearly distinct as they were in the

years following World War II, presidents still have a small advantage in foreign policy and a

significant amount of leeway to act unilaterally in this area.

 Presidents have the authority to sign executive agreements into law, which gives them

legal force in matters of foreign policy. Over 17,000 such agreements have been negotiated by

presidents in the last eight decades, which is more than 15 times the number of treaties passed by

the Senate. Furthermore, presidents have frequently sent the country to war using just their own

power. The president's unique connections to the diplomatic, defense, and intelligence

communities support his right to act alone in international affairs (Polsby et al). But there are

also a lot of hazards involved. The 2003 invasion of Iraq case study demonstrates how a

president may utilize their authority to reshape the national security narrative in spite of

incomplete intelligence.

The president's authority is, however, far more limited in matters of domestic affairs. The

capacity to cooperate with Congress is crucial in this case. When the president's party controls

Congress, a unified government results in much better presidential, legislative success rates than

a split government. This emphasizes how crucial a president's political support in Congress is, as

well as how adept they are at negotiating across party lines when their party is not the majority.

Furthermore, the capacity of a prospective president to effectively define the national agenda

must be taken into account while assessing their domestic policy acumen. The president has

unparalleled capacity to bring certain concerns to the attention of the country, even while their

authority to pass legislation is restricted. A competent president would strategically use this

authority to set the agenda, focusing on problems where advancement is feasible and popular

support is mobilizable.

Ability to Maintain Public Support:

The final indicator we will debate is the potential president's ability to maintain public

support. (DiClerico, &James) Presidential power rests in part on a claim to national leadership,
and the strength of that claim is roughly proportional to the president's public support. (Patterson)

High approval ratings provide presidents with political capital that can influence other

Washington officials and shape the national agenda.

Keeping the public's support, nevertheless, is difficult work. Early in their administrations, most

presidents have high approval ratings, but this "honeymoon period" never lasts long. Public

support is unavoidably eroded by difficult problems and negative events; more than half of post-

World War II presidents have departed office with an approval rating below 50%. Public support

affects the efficacy of presidents, or lack thereof (Savoy). President George W. Bush's first two

years in office saw Congress pass 17 of his main proposals, helped along by popular support

stemming from his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But when the economy faltered and the

Iraq War grew worse, legislative resistance grew, and his plans for immigration and Social

Security were rejected.

Conclusion:

Some of the elements highlighted by the debate on five indicators of the right President

for United States bore strongly not only to the nature of Presidential work but also to significance

of leadership ability, system’s appreciation, ability to adapt, policy acumen, and the ability to

sustain public support. These qualities are the realistic requirements for functioning within the

framework of the American political system, and the presidency is not a place for personal

agendas or ideological principles, but to lead a large and complex country through difficult times

taking into account the principles of a political system that divides powers between separate and

intertwined branches. The inevitable challenges have to be faced by a President that can be

elected, and who is capable of governing the United States properly.

 Work cited

Coleman, Kevin J., et al. "presidential Elections in the United States: A primer." Congressional

Research Service, Library of Congress, 2000.

DiClerico, Robert E., and James W. Davis. Choosing our choices: Debating the presidential

nominating process. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.

Patterson, Thomas E. We the People: An Introduction to American Government. 15th ed., New

York, Ny, Mcgraw-Hill Education, 2023.

Polsby, Nelson W., Aaron B. Wildavsky, and David A. Hopkins. Presidential elections:

Strategies and structures of American politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

Rossiter, Clinton. "POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT AND

CONGRESS." Pakistan Horizon 15.2 (1962): 85-92.

Savoy, Jacques. "Analysis of the Style and the Rhetoric of the American Presidents Over Two

Centuries." Glottometrics 38.1 (2017): 55-76.

Shugart, Matthew Soberg. "Elections: The American process of selecting a president: A

comparative perspective." Presidential Studies Quarterly 34.3 (2004): 632-655.

Walsh, Kenneth. Presidential Leadership in Crisis: Defining Moments of the Modern Presidents

from Franklin Roosevelt to Donald Trump. Routledge, 2020.