American presidents have been known to pursue different diplomatic, domestic and foreign policies, and personal accomplishments that have defined the course of the American society and the politics of the nation. In this light, it would be vital to evaluate, compare, and contrast the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Richard M. Nixon, consequently explaining the reasons for considering the latter half of the 20 th century as the age of “Imperial Presidency.” The very nature of the powerful position that the presidents held could be considered as malleable in the sense that they had more power in situations such as war. All three presidents could be considered in history as wartime presidents. One of their fundamental roles involved handling conflicts in the face of voters’ assessments as well as subsequent judgments from individuals.
When FDR took office, he was aware that America could be drawn into WWII, as it was raging in Europe, with Japan trying to push further into the Chinese territory. Even though there was political opposition, FDR let go of domestic matters and focused on the development of the U.S. military. In this light, he promoted weapons programs, installed new individuals into the armed service, and pushed Congress to come up with legislation that would come up with the nation’s initial military draft (Merry, 2015). He predicted that the war was to last for a long period, meaning that it was not going to be easy for the military personnel that would be involved. Rather than leaving all decisions to the military leaders, FDR was deeply involved in strategic boardroom decisions, leaving the tactical aspects of the war to the military leaders (Merry, 2015). According to Katherine Ellison (2013), a few hours after Roosevelt’s death on 12 April 1945, Harry Truman took office, consequently trashing Roosevelt’s plan for the post-war society since he orchestrated a change in Roosevelt’s policy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unlike Roosevelt, Truman was not well versed in different aspects of war. The involvement of the American military in WWII shifted the American history to one that involved international politics, which meant that Truman had to focus on the development of appropriate diplomatic and foreign policies. Roosevelt’s foreign policy was hinged on the concept of personal diplomacy (Ellison, 2013). Considering his skills as a leader, personal diplomacy was appropriate for Roosevelt since it depended on the personal contacts he had with international leaders, meaning that the American foreign policies were a reflection of Roosevelt’s changing criteria. Truman used his firsthand experience as a soldier during WWI to make foreign policy decisions. He followed the policy of containment, which involved the claim that it was essential to contain communism (Spalding, 2006).
In this light, he advocated for Congress to consider the implementation of a universal military training program, which is indicative of the provision that he was a sympathizer of a militarized country. The difference in Truman and Roosevelt's preferences led to the creation of a gray area between the plans of the two presidents in preparation for war. According to Ellison (2013), the gray area would be considered as a twilight zone depicting the differences between the maintenance of traditional peace and the implementation of measures that would prevent war. Truman’s foreign policy was at odds with the foreign policy observed by Roosevelt, who was more definite in the postwar plans he had laid down. The definitive nature of Roosevelt’s approach influenced American isolationism. Even though Truman was not in a position of bringing back the nation to isolationism, he directed his wrath to the Soviet Union, a factor that is confirmed by Ellison (2013) when she indicates that in a 1945 meeting with Hopkins, Truman stated that he could either use diplomatic language or go to war with the Soviet Union.
Truman used his executive powers to end the Second World War by issuing orders to drop an atomic bomb on Japan on August 6, 1945 (Spalding, 2006). Even though he accomplished the end of the war, this point marked the beginning of the Cold War. President Nixon took office in the year 1969, two decades into the Cold War. Ellison (2013) refers to a study by the historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., to indicate that President Nixon would be regarded as the embodiment of imperial presidency. In this case, Nixon’s ability to abuse the office of the president was a derivative of the experience he had during the Cold War. There is a possibility of arguing that the unremitting warfare could be the reason for this imperial presidency, which was characterized by a phase of traditional peace as well as the traditional war that commenced after the end of the Second World War. Most historians contrast Truman’s accomplishments with FDR’s, but it should be noted that the state of continuous warfare came about under Truman’s leadership, consequently leading to the creation of a structure for imperial presidential powers (Ellison, 2013). However, Nixon’s presidency somewhat heightened the notion of imperial executive powers.
Unlike Roosevelt and Truman, Nixon was manipulative and deceitful. He advocated for more US involvement in the war, a factor that could be used to indicate that his approach was more proactive rather than defensive. In this case, Nixon focused on avoiding armed conflicts by using modern tactics, consequently revealing the strength of the US during the Cold War period. His foreign policy stance could be identified from the 25 July 1969, where he urged the US allies to be responsible for their military defense (United States Congress, 1972). For this reason, his approach could be likened to the need for pursuing peace by collaborating with the American allies. In this light, he presumably pursued the American allies to take responsibility for ensuring that they maintained peace and stability in their respective regions. This diplomatic or foreign policy approach contrasts the approaches assumed by Roosevelt and Truman, who focused more on isolationism.
To conclude, it would be vital to take note of the provision that the three presidents pursued different diplomatic, domestic, and foreign policy strategies that enabled them to achieve their respective accomplishments. As noted, FDR focused more on external rather than internal matters of the country. He had the capability of coming up with substantial plans and did not live to see the implementation of his post-war American society. When Truman took over from Roosevelt, he used the experience he had gained as a soldier in the First World War to advocate for universal military training. One of his fundamental achievements was the ending of WWII. President Nixon took a rather different approach in his foreign policy and international relations decisions. Instead of letting America shoulder the military responsibility of ensuring peace in different parts of the world, Nixon was for the idea of collaborating with allies in different regions, consequently urging them to be responsible for maintaining the peace and stability of their different regions.
References
Ellison, K. (2013). Building A House of Peace: The Origins of the Imperial Presidency and the Framework for Executive Power, 1933-1960 (Ph.D.). Western Michigan University.
Merry, R. (2015). America's 5 Best Wartime Presidents . The National Interest . Retrieved 1 May 2018, from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-5-best-wartime-presidents-12723
Spalding, E. E. (2006). The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism . Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
United States Congress. (1972). Congressional Record: Proceedings and debates of Congress . Washington: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office.
