PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON.   Term Paper ID:29482 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Discusses his pluralist views of American democracy.... More...

4 Pages / 900 Words 2 sources, 14 Citations, APA Format $16.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Discusses his pluralist views of American democracy. His agenda as an attempt to create unity, reform the political system and campaign against special interests. Failure of his National Healthcare Policy. Participation of Congress in the Clinton agenda. Political stratification and hyperpluralism. Challenges to Clinton's leadership, integrity and competence. Paper Introduction: Clinton’s Pluralism On balance, The Agenda illustrates the pluralist views of American democracy in which an elected president attempts to ensure that a wide range and variety of voices are heard in the formulation of policy, both domestic and foreign. Bob Woodward (1995), in describing Bill Clinton’s “agenda,” suggests that Clinton promised something for virtually everyone – teachers, the welfare dependent poor, minorities, the wealthy and the middle class, the business community, and those needing health insurance or concerned with a rising budget deficit. This “something for everyone” agenda, as viewed by Jonathan Rauch (1994), represented an attempt to achieved unity from disunity, to reform the political system to return control of a “reinvented” government to the “people,’ and a campaign against Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. New York: Pocket Books. The Agenda. While Clinton himself perceived democracy as ideally pluralist, themany challenges to his leadership and his integrity and competence (i.e.,the failure in health care reform) suggest that he can also be viewed asstratificationist. New York: Random House.Woodward, B. Similarly, it is also possible to view Clinton and his policies ashyperpluralist, too focused on the inclusion of every possible interestgroup in the political agenda-setting and policy formation processes. Bob Woodward (1995), in describing Bill Clinton's"agenda," suggests that Clinton promised something for virtually everyone -teachers, the welfare dependent poor, minorities, the wealthy and themiddle class, the business community, and those needing health insurance orconcerned with a rising budget deficit. The inclusion ofa national health care plan in the Clinton legislative and policy agenda isan example of pluralism at work in that the overarching goal of the plan,as described by Woodward (1995 , was to ensure that all Americans(including the "working poor" and the uninsured and underinsured) wouldhave the same access to health care available to more affluent or betterinsured Americans. Clinton's Pluralism On balance, The Agenda illustrates the pluralist views of Americandemocracy in which an elected president attempts to ensure that a widerange and variety of voices are heard in the formulation of policy, bothdomestic and foreign. Even Rauch (1994)tends to agree, noting that as both president and candidate, Bill Clintonoffered more-for-everybody promises, but ultimately became a staunchadvocate of real politic whose reforms were nowhere nearly as sweeping asinitially promised. ReferencesRauch, J. This "something for everyone"agenda, as viewed by Jonathan Rauch (1994), represented an attempt toachieved unity from disunity, to reform the political system to returncontrol of a "reinvented" government to the "people,' and a campaignagainst "special interests." This is a set of values and concomitantactions that are de facto examples of pluralism. Clinton's policies, says Rauch (1994), led to thecreation of new interest groups and the gaining of influence by lobbies andassociations while failing to achieve the reforms in government or healthcare that was at the cornerstone of his electoral message. Rauch (1994) commented that Bill Clinton was put into office by anelectorate that was, regardless of its differences and commonalities,generally frustrated with the failure of Washington and its leaders tosolve problems. The divide between rich and poor so descriedby Clinton the campaigner and Clinton the president widened during histenure in office, despite reductions in the budget deficit and tax reform. Congress and many others (including the various key appointees ofClinton's executive staff) also participated in setting the agenda or atleast in realizing or rejecting its components. To that end, his various retreats from a single focus to amore diverse and varied set of strategies for meeting the needs ofcompeting groups (the middle class demanding changes in welfare policy, thepoor demanding new tax breaks, the business community and the affluent alsospeaking for tax reform) can be considered as both politics and pluralism.Woodward (1995) suggests that Clinton's "populism" was one of theunderpinnings of his agenda, and that this is demonstrated in his attackson the banks and "big business," which were nevertheless taken intoconsideration in his policy setting process. While it is possible to view Clinton's approach to American democracyas either stratificationist or hyperpluralist, the pluralist perspective isultimately most clearly supported by Woodward (1995). To create a workable plan, says Woodward (1995), theClintons created a task force that was, at least initially, composed ofvarious individuals representing disparate points of view. Nevertheless, as Rauch(1994) has suggested, a sort of political stratification occurred as theClintons were seen as failing to satisfy their various constituencies.Clinton waffled, so to speak, on the issues dear to the hearts of theCongressional Black Caucus; he antagonized labor with his staunch supportfor NAFTA, angered the welfare rights and gay rights groups with hispolicies on "their" issues, and also failed to present the Congress withthe kind of economic plan that they had anticipated (Woodward, 1995).However, as Woodward (1995) recounts, Clinton and his wife believed that apluralist approach to gaining support was needed; to that end, they drewupon input from a surprising and not always congruent assortment ofadvisors. He also attempted to gainsupport from both sides of the aisle in the Congress when his legislativepackages were up for a vote. He was, in the view of Rauch (1994), far to anxious toaccommodate every possible interest group; because this was the case, heended in several instances (such as health care and the economic plan)satisfying virtually no one. (1994). To address this concern, Clinton is said by Woodward(1994) as attempting, as in the case of his economic plan, to garnerbipartisan support. In this effort, Clinton found (as had many othersbefore him) that to gain consensus on one part of a plan, he had to giveway on another. AsWoodward (1995) suggests, Clinton and Gore attempted to garner support fromany number of special interest groups, including the American Associationof Retired Persons (AARP), the National Education Association (NEA), andthe National Association of Manufacturers. In formulating policy and preparing legislation, as in the case ofhealth care, Clinton drew heavily upon input from others; notable in thehealth plan policy development process were Hillary Clinton (given the leadrole by her husband) and Ira Magaziner (Woodward, 1995). (1995). Demosclerosis. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.