Crime Control in the 2008 Presidential Election: Symbolic Politics or Tangible Policies?

Abstract

Presidential candidates regularly use crime issues to help win electoral support. Contrary to conventional wisdom, crime control became an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite decreasing crime rates and public opinion focused only temporarily on illegal immigration, the three major presidential candidates (Obama, Clinton, & McCain) discussed many anticrime initiatives during the campaign. Unlike past research which has found presidential candidates use primarily symbolic rhetoric in their anticrime rhetoric, all three presidential candidates in the 2008 presidential election were found to have employed tangible statements. The article discusses the different findings, making recommendations for future research.Keywords 2008 Presidential Campaign . Crime control . Obama . Clinton . McCain PRESIDENT, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom and of whom only it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

Not All Crime Policies Are Created Equal

“…The univariate data, however, demonstrated that the majority of speeches in presidential election years were not symbolic, but rather substantive. This may very well be for the fact that presidents feel they have to make campaign promises to communicate to the public what their agenda will be if elected president, so rather than engaging the public in symbolic rhetoric, they are more explicit in what they would do in all areas of policy making if elected (Marion & Farmer, 2003; Marion & Oliver, 2011).…”

“…As the latter has articulated, “the politicization of crime is frequently a symbolic exercise without serious policy intentions—particularly at the national level” (Scheingold, 1984, p. 181). Since then, there has been increased evidence that presidents engage in symbolic politics when it comes to their campaign speeches (Marion & Farmer, 2003; Marion & Oliver, 2011), executive orders (Oliver, 2001), and in their budgetary requests to Congress (Caldeira, 1983; Caldeira & Cowart, 1980; Oliver & Marion, 2006, 2009), which has the impact of influencing both the public and Congress. All of the research until recently, however, has been qualitative in nature, only recently has an attempt been made to explain when and why presidents employ symbolic rhetoric through the use of logistic regression (Marion & Oliver, 2013).…”

“…A growing body of research has also found that presidents, since at least Hoover, have employed symbolic rhetoric when it comes to the topic of crime policy (Calder, 1993). Whether on the campaign trail (Marion & Farmer, 2003; Marion & Oliver, 2011), in their budgetary requests to Congress (Caldeira, 1983; Caldeira & Cowart, 1980; Oliver & Marion, 2006, 2009), or through their executive orders (Oliver, 2001), presidents engage in symbolic rhetoric when it comes to the issue of crime. One recent study explains why presidents resort to entirely symbolic rhetoric in their crime policy speeches, and findings suggest that it is when public concern for crime rises, during presidential election years, that Democrats will use it to undercut the Republican “hold” on the crime issue, and when government is divided, that is, when the political majority of at least one branch of Congress differs from that of the president (Marion & Oliver, 2013).…”

Presidential rhetoric as crime control theater: the case of cybercrime

“…Символические действия и выступления разъясняют публике сущность проблем и предлагаемых решений. Тем самым политики успокаивают обеспокоенных граждан и дают им понять, что избранное официальное лицо знает о проблеме, заботится о гражданах и что предпринимаются меры для решения проблемы [21][22][23]. Другими словами, они «убеждают и успокаивают общественность» [24, p. 13].…”

Taking a Bite Out of the Crime Issue: Congressional Candidates and Partisan Benefits

“…Yet, there is still reason to expect that Republicans may benefit electorally from the salience of the issue even when they face weakened trust on it. While the Democratic Party and its candidates have made appeals about crime throughout recent history (Marion & Oliver, 2012, 2013Marion, Smith, & Oliver, 2009;Oliver, 2002Oliver, , 2003aOliver, Hill, & Marion, 2011;Oliver & Marion, 2006, 2008Oliver et al, 2016), the likelihood for these actions to translate into electoral gains is far more tenuous for them than it is for their Republican counterparts. When first detailing issue ownership theory, Petrocik (1996) argued that Democratic action on crime has the potential to provoke distress among their strongest supporters.…”