The Grand Bargain Essay.

Our writers will deliver plagiarism-free paper on this assignment. Order with us today!

Details:Read the following account of the failed Grand Bargain
of 2011: Source: Newton-Small, J. (2011, July 23). The inside story of
Obama and Boehner’s second failed grand bargain. Retrieved from
http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/23/the-inside-story-of-obama-and-boehners-second-failed-grand-bargain/
After you have completed reading the above-cited article, write an
essay discussing the various leadership theories implied by the
article. Specifically, you should 1) Identify three leaders in the
article and 2) Discuss a leadership approach/style that would move
each of those three leaders close toward a so-called grand
bargain.  No approach/style will be a cure-all, so you need to use
your best judgment from all you have learned in the previous units.
Also, be sure to 3) Identify the historical context and associated
practices of each leadership approach/style/theory discussed. Also, 4)
Use specific examples when making a point.

 

 

Here’s a snippet of the essay.

 

Identify Three Leaders in the Article

 

The grand bargain of 2011 was spearheaded by three leaders as indicated in the review article. These were the president Barack Obama, the House Speaker John Boehner and majority leader Eric Cantor.

 

Discuss a Leadership Approach/Style That Would Move Each of Those Three Leaders Close toward a So-Called Grand Bargain

 

Below, is a set of arrangements done in an institutional manner and policy tools alike that would have ensured and facilitated a successful negotiation between the three leaders which include repeated interactions, private meetings, and expertise and penalty defaults. Here an exploration of the effectiveness and relevance of the above named factors in the context of the house of congress, including a variety of other factors which are informed by the congressional literature, is done in detail.

 

Secrecy. Starting the 1970s there was initiated a move towards achieving greater transparency levels in congressional operations. This was aimed at the House floor and committees where what was rather considered to be a burst of sunshine laws proved and is up to date proving to be a double-edged sword. As much as great openness of any particular legislative body is considered as a normative good by virtue of increasing the ability of organized interests and the public to be able to hold individual legislators accountable and the institutions in general for the decisions they make it should also be note that the more transparent legislative processes are made, the more the public gets to dislike Congress (Hibbing and Thesis-Morse 1995). It is true that, at times, transparency does not always as expected lead to institutional legitimacy, sometimes it may undermine it. To make the situation worse, transparency, more often than not, tends to impose what are considered to be direct costs on the success of making a deal.

 

The number one problem in this case is that normally, public attention tends to amplify the incentive of legislators to adhere to messages of the party; this step is rarely favorable for putting aside their differences and negotiating a deal. A perfectscenario that depicts this would be   what senators had to say as they came from the Senate’s bipartisan retreat that was held behind closed doors of the old Senate Chamber in the summer of 2013. The Democrats had considered “going nuclear” to ensure changing of the Senate’s filibuster rule. However, this is what Senator John Boozman (R-Ark) said, “There was no resentment at all,” the Senator had taken note of this in a session held behind closed doors with close to 100 senators in attendance. “I think if the American people were watching, the whole tone would have been different. It  is different when the TV cameras are on. That might be part of the problem” (quoted in O’Keefe and Johnson 2013). Bessette (1994, 221) argues  “The duty to deliberate well may often be inconsistent with attempts to conduct policy deliberations on the plane of public opinion.” Within public settings members are rather forced by the environment to pose before an external audience rather than jumping into a more direct engagement with their congressional counterparts.

find the cost of your paper