Free «Role of the presidents in vietnam war» Essay Sample
The highest position in the government is no other than the presidency. Entailed with the position being held of the President are great power and control not just in the manner of managing the whole nation but as well as its sovereign people. It is a known fact that the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the military, he also has the power to appoint government officials being the head of the executive department, and he also has legislative powers accordingly. These powers and capabilities of the President can make him the highest and most feared government official. But then again, despite the many powers and privileges that are being extended to the President, it cannot be denied that there is still a need to regulate such powers in order to respect the sovereignty of the civilians. The power of the President to appoint cabinet members and other government officials must be curtailed. In the present government situation, there are many Presidents from around the world that are taking advantage with such power and as a result of which, corruptions and illegalities are being apparent (Salmon, 231). By virtue of the power to appoint, in the absence of integrity would simply appoint people who are close to him in order for them to do corruption easily. This should be avoided and hence, the power must be curtailed. On the other hand, the legislative power of the President must be expanded. Laws have it that the President can veto legislations coming from the House of the Senate. However, it is being confided only in the checks and balance system wherein the President has all the right to see and check if the other two bodies of the government are doing their tasks responsibly.
But then again, such roles are not limited to the aforementioned but rather transverse into the involvement of many presidents in the war in Vietnam that marked the history. Body The role that President Dwight D. Eisenhower played in the Vietnam War is the strengthening of the Vietnam nation by means of fabricating a form of government that will eventually promote the welfare of the people and those that have been affected by war. Against the revolutions that are significant of modernity, there was the prophetic stream of Marxism in the Vietnam War. With increasing steps towards rationalism, much went against it because rationalism was very hard to hold. With increasing fury people turned increasingly against such rationalism. This will be explained in the essay as rebellion will be explained in terms of a greater pull against rationalism so far as it interfered with progressions towards legitimacy. As Marx writes in The Gundrisse: `In this society of free competition, the individual appears detached from the natural bonds etc, in which earlier historical periods make him the accessory of a definite and limited human conglomerate` (Marx, 1978, p.221). There is in modern strife a religious impulse towards rebellion under such limiting conditions. This religious impulse was carried by romanticist thinkers like Matthew Arnold in that they saw the technocratic apparatuses of a modern rational society destroying something of the spectacular miracle of religion.
That the removal of religion was something tragic and in due course something many people could not endure that very well. This was a tendency that suffocated many people because they could not stand it. In the rebellion of the parties to the war, much was costly because prices were impacted and reasoning was skewed as attested by John Kennedy. Yet there were legitimate actions taken by the mighty Israeli state to block all such efforts towards revolutionary agitation and attempts to ward of a modernity of extreme rationality. From its beginnings, the Vietnamese state has been a state caught in the webs of dependency. Caught without an adequate bureaucracy and system of administration, dependency on other nation for war was pre-eminent and in many ways, and it still is. As stated, economic survival therefore depended on transfers from Vietnam of taxes collected from other nations and on aid from donors (Khan, 2004, p.13). The movements of goods and people to the outside world and even within its own territories had to go through multiple controlled checkpoints that could be opened or closed depending on the satisfactory performance of the police in the perspective of delivering security (Khan, 2004, p.13). Though this deliverance of security may have been a deep desire, the manageability of this deliverance was simply unavailable and the taxes for this security simply not enough and never enough. This may be partially due to the unfortunate trend that security is managed by the infliction of terror. When Stalin reached, the ability to manage security he did it in such a wave of crimson and brutality that such security was unfeasible in itself unless horrible combinations were acclimated to the population (Parrish, 1996). What Stalin achieved was the greatest security for such a long time but the terror directed at his own people was so grave that words cannot speak of their error. From secret police to a violence that was so awful and so brutal that guns were alarming to people and knives silenced all too many from strife. On this note, perhaps the Vietnam exertion of rebellion was to prevent the state from conforming exactly to brutal standards of regimentation, regulation, and extreme, rationalization. Johnson and Nixon, on the other hand, trained various members of the military in order to promote a just and humane society. That domestication was certainly needed but that perhaps internal crime was suffocated so extremely that extreme perversions of outward expression appeared. To the harm and greater endangering of the Vietnam state, it was very ironic. It must be understood that the State should promote a just and dynamic social order. This is accomplished through policies that provide adequate social services. Every society must ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty. Hence, it means all people not just the aristocratic few. The goal is to reduce the political and economic power of the privileged few by equalizing widely differing standards and opportunities for advancement and to raise the masses of the people from their poverty to a qualitative life worthy of human dignity.
With the eradication of mass poverty being experienced of a nation, the State solves at the same time a chain of social problems that comes with it; social unrest, breakdown of family systems, diseases, ignorance, criminality, and low productivity. Policies must only be created to promote social justice in all phases of national development. In the fulfillment of this duty, the State must give preferential attention to the welfare of the less fortunate members of the community—the poor, the underprivileged and those who have less in life for the benefit of the whole nation.


In much of the history, great states have been constructed not from the absolute to the opposition but rather from the opposition to the absolute. Towards transformation, cleavages are often times useful, and separated by the social; the necessity of difference and strife itself is too often obscured. Many intellectuals such as Kay Warren wrote that which serves to `expose the distortions of top-down formulations of culture and change that concentrate on the powers of the state, formal institutions, and national leaders, projecting passivity and ignorance onto the wider public`. That which serves to expose does not eradicate legitimacy but only pulls greater pressures for a more authentic legitimacy. Their resentment in the principles of liberalism cannot be doubted. Such principles are just mere presumptions of those who are against the conservative governance of government. As embodied in the practices of the groups, the functions of conservatism are determined to entail the ensuring of the equilibrium in the society.

What Our Customers Say

Get 15%OFF   your first custom essay order Order now Use discount code first15
Click here to chat with us