Word: scientists
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Latitudinarians. At one end of the presidential spectrum are the men whom New York University Political Scientist Louis Koenig calls the "literalists": those who, like Madison and Taft, interpreted their powers narrowly and subscribed to the Whig theory of the President as an errand boy for Congress. At the other end are what Yale Historian John Morton Blum calls the "latitudinarians": those who, like Lincoln and Wilson, gave wide scope to the Constitution's vague charter...
...armed forces and administrator of a vast bureaucracy, leading legislator and top diplomat, educator and economist, symbol and sage, ribbon cutter and fence mender. Because of his role in shaping legislation affecting the cities, in recent years he has also become "the Chief Executive of Metropolis," as Williams Political Scientist James Mac-Gregor Burns puts...
Teacher-in-Chief. Nor is that all. Cornell Political Scientist Clinton Rossiter once noted that the President must also serve as a national "scoutmaster, Delphic oracle, hero of the silver screen [today, that would read 'TV tube'] and father of the multitudes." In addition, says Historian Sidney Hyman, he must possess "animal energy, a physical capacity for long and sustained attention to detail, the power to endure bores," as well as "a will to decide," and a "sense of tragedy" that results when men seek to do good, but inadvertently achieve evil ends...
What may well be the most important power of a President, in the long run, is one that is neither defined nor even hinted at in the Constitution. "Presidential power," says Political Scientist Richard Neustadt, Director of the Kennedy Institute for Politics at Harvard, "is the power to persuade." Or, as Stanford Historian Thomas A. Bailey writes: "The Commander-in-Chief is also the Teacher-in-Chief. If he is to get the wheels to move and 'make things happen,' in Woodrow Wilson's phrase, he must educate the people...
...congressional economizers have been slicing away at NASA's space budget. Their efforts have been so successful that the U.S., while still committed to landing men on the moon by 1970, has virtually scrapped its once ambitious planetary exploration program. Alarmed by the trend, an eminent U.S. space scientist has forcefully spoken out, warning that the U.S. is in effect abandoning the planets to Russia. In a signed editorial in Science, University of Iowa Physicist James Van Allen contrasted the "ambitious and increasingly competent" Soviet planetary program to U.S. plans, which now include only two more flights...