Administrative Ethics

Based on the issues described the presidency of Roosevelt and Taft, Roosevelt was a successful politician who made various programs that rescued America from Great Depression and great wars. William Howard Taft was a more successful administrator than a politician. He lacked presidential power and he was ambitious of serving in the United States as Chief Justice. He served severally in political appointments until he became president and later got his ambitious position of Chief Justice. Taft was more conservative than Roosevelt (Herring 2017). 

Roosevelt believed that the president had a duty to do everything the nation demanded so long as it was not forbidden by law. He believed that he served the people and not the government. Taft's leadership was based on the strict constructionist model of the presidency. Under this approach, President has no right to act unless granted by the Congress. Taft looked at the facts of the situation and acted based on evidence. On the other hand, Roosevelt acted based on what he felt was right (Mayer, 2002).

Roosevelt model of the presidency

According to Herring (2017), beginning his presidency on September 14, 1901, after being a vice-president for less than a year, Roosevelt always believed that as a president and a leader, he always had one of a kind connection with and a rationale obligation towards the people of the great United States of America. He always wanted to bring change to the prevailing mental apprehension among the larger population of America of overcontrolled state leadership and extreme individualism. He always wanted and fulfilled his thoughts of working as a public true agent of reform for the United States of America citizens.

In reference to Mio et al., (2005), Teddy Roosevelt believed in progressive leadership. He would initiate projects and involve the public to participate in the projects. He believes a country needs to foster ahead from one level to another with the continuous help of its people. He believed the future of the United States belongs to people hence they are the ones to be given some power and resources to develop the various sectors of the economy.

Roosevelt through his long battles he managed to empower the Americans. His method of the presidency was about empowering the public to get social justice and economic stability. He instilled a sense of belonging and togetherness. He believed in justice equality and economic growth the citizens had to be empowered (Herring 2017). 

Based on an intensive research done by Brinkley and Holland (2009), Roosevelt is the father of the current influence and much respect the topmost office (white house) currently has. Roosevelt’s determination to push forward for change and reforms began in the 1800s where the Congress had started gathering more power hence weighing down its dictator opponents. His much-awaited transition finally bore fruits with an effective executive.

Roosevelt always believed that presidency should entrust an ever-advancing credibility and legislation to its people. Roosevelt always viewed presidency as a means of driving equity and fairness with economic stability and possibilities for all the American population. He initiated and by all means within his capabilities achieved what he believed in for an inclusive state, without excluding any class of people in the country (Mio et al., 2005).

In reference to Brinkley and Holland (2009), during his unforgettable leadership term, Roosevelt believed that it was the responsibility and right of the state government to manage the big businesses in America so that its decisions and unprecedented actions do not cause harm to the whole American public in general unlike where the previous government had generally authorized the big firms of various industries in the United States a carte blanche in order to facilitate accomplishment of their goals.

The United States was not to go alone if it had to achieve its objectives and goals for the citizens, there was a need to involve other like-minded nations around the globe which led to Roosevelt revolutionizing the then inactive docket of foreign affairs as a leader, he believed it was his responsibility to fight and negotiate for his people. He believed that American future depended on the neighboring countries hence never hesitated to initiate strong foreign policies and relations for the interests of the American people (Wineburg and Monte-Sano 2008).

He believed in devoting the country’s resources for the common citizens to utilize. A leadership that had not been witnessed before for years in the United States. With his outstanding style of leadership, charisma in the previously much tiring political equation was introduced. The strong rapport he had created with the public and his wise usage of public media in opinion shaping was just unique. He is widely referred to as the “stewardship presidency” (Brinkley and Holland 2009).

The negotiation line of Roosevelt in the line of law and ethics

As suggested by Brinkley and Holland (2009), Roosevelt had the unique style of approaching situations. In his negotiation line of law and ethics, he believed it was that all he had or ever wanted to do were right as evident in his quote, where he stated that it was the country’s top leaders to other areas responsibility to perform their duties as per the demands of the nation unless what was being demanded for prohibited by the sole constitutional laws that had been passed by the Congress. Service to both people and government was his mantra and this saw him come up with national parks for the U.S.

Roosevelt after he was elected he increased the scope of federal powers, he believed in democracy hence he could not attack those that were serving the public interest in his own selfish interests. This is seen when he refused to shut down the U.S Steel despite being a monopoly as it was serving the citizens’ interests (Herring 2017). 

Roosevelt believed in what he stood for, he always preferred to do what his instincts felt were right and helpful to the common citizens. Unlike other presidents, his preferences made him fallout with other Republicans which led to the divorce of their previously merged union.

Taft’s views on the responsibilities of a president.

According to Brinkley and Holland (2009), William Howard Taft clinched to topmost seat to succeed his predecessor, Roosevelt. As the saying goes, “birds of the same feathers fly together, William Taft aligned and operated his duties in a conservative manner as dictated by his members in the ruling Republic Party. He assumed the conservative nature of leadership during his term.

In reference to Mio et al., (2005), Taft believed government being the main power organ above any individual in the country. He placed the priority on serving the needs of the government he was managing and its civil servants without looking deeply into the affairs of the common citizens. He also believed in a structural nature of administration as his method of the presidency. Upon assumption of office, he prioritized the restructuring of various state departments.

From William Taft's method of leadership, it has made him be branded as a strict state constructionist. In Taft's approach to leadership, he was strict too and always tended to all times use the powers of the Congress Constitution. He believed that unless the constitution has granted sure powers, he as a president of the United States of America had no certain duties to act and carry out duties as demanded by the general public. He always insisted that he cannot perform even urgent duties unless a clear communication from the Congress Constitution is reasonable and clearly traced to give a certain direction without any confliction (Herring 2017). 

In reference to Brinkley and Holland (2009), William Haft method of presidency involved avoidance of the media most of the day. Taft could often avoid offering himself for major media interviews or give photo opportunities. He preferred staying away from the public limelight. He would only be seen majorly when the situation has forced a national need with the fellow congress members

Taft believed in conservation policies. His method of policy would not allow outside consultation if not stated by the Congress. From his methodology of the presidency, he fires Pinchot. He majorly depended on dictatorship and this method led to his former friends he had shown the door join his rivals in the opposition (Brinkley and Holland 2009).

Taft as a president used all means possible to restrict the expansion of the much established and anticipated federal laws that had been established prior to his election. From time to time he took more legal views and directed his attorney general to file a constructive and precise anti-trust lawsuit against the previously free monopoly operating firm, U.S Steel to limit their dominance in the United States’ industry (Mio et al., 2005).

In an extensive research done by Mio et al., (2005), he finds that William Howard Taft was always inclined, and he only considered to look at and check on facts of the situation so as to act or make a decision in regards to the evidence provided by the constitution at hand. He was unable to make instrumental decisions for the American citizen on his own even if the situation was urgent. He often relied on a certain confirmation from the Congress constitution.

The actions of Roosevelt and Taft in the case of the U.S steel

The U.S Steel was the center of supremacy between the predecessor Roosevelt and the then president William Howard Taft. Despite a warm working environment granted to the U.S Steel Corporation, the Taft regime did all it could to bring it down the then ruling Taft administration decided to go a step higher and file a lawsuit in the federal court against the well performing United States Steel Corporation (USSC) citing violation of the famous Sherman Antitrust Act in the year 1890. Among the accusations, the Taft administration was citing involved the improper acquisition of the Tennessee coal and iron by the corporation. They claimed that it had acquired the mining materials deliberately, out of obstructing competition and unfair according to the previously laid down rules (Mio et al., 2005).

According to Wineburg and Monte-Sano (2008), the major fallout between Roosevelt and Taft started with the filing of this lawsuit as it was an open transgression of the popular “gentlemen’s agreement” which was signed by Roosevelt’s administration during his tenure as a president and Morgan J.P in the year 1907 which had stated that the acquisition the material by the corporation would not be by them in any possible anti-trust suit.

In reference to (Brinkley and Holland 2009), the filing of the law broke the earlier agreement between Morgan and Roosevelt leading to differing on important national matters between Roosevelt and William Taft. Roosevelt anger on the breakage of this gentlemen agreement made him wrest the nomination of the Republican presidency away from Taft in the year 1911. From the lawsuit, it was observed and determined that the acquisition of iron and Tennessee coal by the United States Corporation under the leadership of Morgan had enigmatical motives from the former president Roosevelt.

Keeping in mind it was Roosevelt’s plan to help the United States Steel Corporation at his own gain, it destroyed the already build reputation he had among his country people. This federal courts decision bulged the belief he had in them. The United States Corporation had agreed with the government for a merger and dominance in the mining industry which had to be revoked (Brinkley and Holland 2009).

Views of Roosevelt and Taft on the responsibilities of a president

Once, cool friends, the two parted ways with each having own views regarding the leadership of the United States of America. Roosevelt always believed that the presidency should entrust and be responsible to for its action to them. He sees the presidency as a vessel to improve people's lives while Taft always wanted a connection with the Congress constitution as a reference of all the actions he could undertake. He assumed an approach which it was difficult to make executive decisions.

Teddy Roosevelt used more of intervention in his leadership where he would intervene in major foreign affairs. He did so by collaborating in the construction of the Panama Canal, he also intervened and supported the Panama revolution to part ways with Columbia in the year 1903 while on the other hand, Taft William Howard preferred the use of investments to encourage American diplomacy in a common practice which was later named "dollar diplomacy." He was often directed by the American interests.

As suggested by Mayer (2002), Roosevelt was a change agent to the American economy and citizens at large as he introduced various reforms and changes so as the citizens to be all inclusive in building the country. He made changes to eliminate the prevalent mindset among most Americans that government was for itself and them for themselves. He achieved his reforms by spreading federal powers. On the other side, William Taft was more of a conservative. He was not always ready to make important decisions that had no clear directions from the Congress constitution even if the matter was of a public demand and need

Roosevelt and Taft Actions in the case of the U.S steel

The United States Steel Corporation giant that had majored in iron and Tennessee had received a warm state operation from Roosevelt's administration as it allowed them to continue with operation throughout the United States. Despite it being considered a major monopoly in the economy, Roosevelt's administration saw it as a benefit to the economy as it was helping the locals. On the other side, the U.S Steel Corporation had to rub shoulders every now and then over its methods of acquiring raw materials and this led to the filing of lawsuits by the Taft administration against the gigantic firm. The lawsuit worsened the relationship between the two former friends and the firm too (Burns and Dunn (2007).

Describe a leader whose model of the presidency is similar to that of Roosevelt and Taft and the effects of this model to the political actions of the leader

Roosevelt could have delivered the best ever presidency model ever witnessed in the world by then, his method was inspiring to many more leaders who heaped praises on the way he delivered his services. His charisma cheered many. His confidence to lead and make urgent decisions without going back to the Congress constitution was a plus to his career. Among the current crop of leaders to be revered and that can be compared to Teddy Roosevelt perhaps with no doubt could be Barrack Obama.

According to a study done by (Mio et al., 2005), Barrack Obama also revolutionized the United States by fearlessly fighting justice for all. His devotion to service for the Americans and other groups of people cannot be overlooked as under his two terms the in the office. In reference to Herring (2017), another president that had a similar method of the presidency as those displayed by William Howard Taft is Calvin Coolidge. He also assumed the silent and conservative nature and in structural form of government as his former president. Though he was alive when it came to national discussion and briefings, he was unable to make executive decisions as those displayed by the Roosevelt administration.

Conclusion

Thesis

The two former friends turned nemesis bring out one of the most researched and talked methods of the presidency. In one method, Roosevelt, considered as the most prolific United States president up to his tenure by some historians came up with a rare quality and style of leadership that enlivened the citizens than before. His frequent dynamism in approaching critical issues regarding the state became a stepping stone to his global popularity and marking of authority among other nations. He believed and understood how to make "Solomonic” decision when the public demanded their own interests. This frequent turf stands made him fall out with his fellow Republican members.

Teddy Roosevelt set a huge democratic and authoritative legacy that his successor flopped to fit in during his tenure. His active involvement and sourcing of duties on behalf of the American population and their interest first marked him as a reformist and a game changer of the United States politics.

Taft, on the other hand, a former Roosevelt great friend, considered a political traitor when he went against his predecessor's wish of never filing a lawsuit against the United States Steel Corporation, an iron mining giant in the U.S that had signed gentlemen agreement with the then Roosevelt's administration to control the mining in the U.S, conserved the leadership style as it was common among his congress members. He preferred taking a back seat when it came to national issues. He often left the law take its course. He conserved the previously laid forms of leadership before the incoming of Roosevelt.

He focused his energy in campaigning to lower the tariffs where he faced rebellion from his own backyard of the Republican members. William Howard Taft was a better administrator than a field politician as exhibited by his predecessor Roosevelt as he could easily restructure his administration. He continued with the projects set by Roosevelt such as the expansion of the United States foreign trade in Asia, Central America and South America. Despite being a top leader, he always wanted a chief justice position as he was passionless in politics after being elected.

Roosevelt and Taft model of the presidency

Roosevelt conquered. He exceptionally established himself as a reforms transformer and a true statesman a modern leader who puts the interest and urgency of the nation before his own needs. His charismatic style of leadership enthralled and livened the political scene. He devoted and decentralize the federal powers and involved the American forgotten classes of people. Roosevelt brought in a factor of inclusivity where all the citizens of the nation were involved in building the economy.

Roosevelt is a change agent whose determination and zeal to bring change was unstable. The current changes in the statehouse and the power held is a direct result of his unending changes. His style of leadership was accepted, loved, cherished and just exceptional. He set a trend in leadership that was difficult for any other incoming president to fit in his shoes. On the other hand, William Howard Taft opted a conservative method that the Americans had been liberated from during Roosevelt’s tenure. The congress constitution was his reference and he needed guidance and proper direction before arriving at any major decision under his authority.

Taft's style of presidency always seemed to lack innovations and scalability. He maintained the rigid form of leadership when stripped the then decentralized federal court's power citing hidden plans by his predecessor. The need of the nation never seemed a priority to the Congress constitution. Roosevelt upon the assumption of power incorporated an active vibrant form of the presidency. He involved himself actively on media matters that involved the United States and always knew how to shape major public debates without causing drifts in his whole administration

Summarize the differences in the two models of the presidency

Roosevelt and William Howard Taft have presented two of the most exciting leadership styles ever seen before. Roosevelt on his side seems to be liberal and caring to the individuals as under his term of leadership. On the other side Taft believed in what was written in the constitution of the Congress as the only right thing and if any situation differed then he had to seek the intervention of his congress members on how to go about. The Congress was his main referencing point in case a situation arose

Roosevelt brought in a very rare charismatic nature of presidency in the then calm political environment. He exceptionally mastered how to use the public social media in the United States. Wittily used public events to clearly shape public opinions and handle delicate matters affecting the nation. On the other hand, there is William Howard Taft. From the charismatic nature set by his predecessor, his administration with the Republican came up with a change in style of leadership. He assumed a silent and quieter nature of solving national issues.

It is evident that Roosevelt was perhaps the most vibrant and energetic president who was never afraid of doing it alone. He would himself come up with the executive decision and later explain after initiating projects with other nations that served the interest of his people. Taft regime seemed more of a backbencher. He always went silent with his passion of quietness where he often let the rule of law as per the Congress constitution take the course.

References

Brinkley, D., & Holland, D. (2009). The wilderness warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the crusade for America (p. vii). New York: HarperCollins.

Burke, J. P. (2000). The institutional presidency: Organizing and managing the White House from FDR to Clinton. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Burns, J. M., & Dunn, S. (2007). The three Roosevelts: Patrician leaders who transformed America. Grove/Atlantic, Inc.

Phil Rabinowitz

Herring, P. (2017). Presidential Leadership: The Political Relations of Congress and the Chief Executive. Routledge.

Mayer, K. (2002). With the stroke of a pen: Executive orders and presidential power. Princeton University Press.

Mio, J. S., Riggio, R. E., Levin, S., & Reese, R. (2005). Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 287-294.