Going Public as a Legislative Weapon: Measuring Presidential Appeals Regarding Specific Legislation

Abstract

This article examines the public appeals of three modern presidents (Carter, Reagan, and the first Bush) concerning 253 significant pieces of legislation. It shows that these occupants of the Oval Office took their case to the American people only a few times regarding most of the bills examined. This finding holds across a number of measures of presidential appeals, including general appeals, calls for public and congressional action, television and radio appeals, and appeals made outside of Washington, DC. The presidents analyzed were more likely to speak in support of rather than in opposition to legislation, however. They also went public repeatedly regarding a handful of proposals, particularly their own initiatives.

“Shaping history” or “Riding the wave”?: President Bush's influence on the public opinion of terrorism, homeland security, & crime

“…It has been shown that presidents can exert substantial control over political environments (John et al, 2007). Presidents often use their office to publicize issues (Canes-Wrone, 2001) and to increase popular support for their policy proposals (Barrett, 2005(Barrett, , 2007Edwards & Wood, 1999;Kernell, 1997;Mayhew, 1974;Young & Perkins, 2005). Presidential speeches increase the public's attention towards the issues they address (Cohen, 1995(Cohen, , 1997Hill, 1998).…”

Presidential Communication During the Legislative Process

“…Although Congress has the sole constitutional authority to introduce and create laws, presidents are now routinely involved throughout the process (Burke, 2000; Collier, 1997). One of the many tools a president may use while negotiating with Congress over the content of laws is to publicly take positions on legislative proposals (Barrett, 2005; Canes‐Wrone, 2001; Eshbaugh‐Soha and Miles, 2011; Hassell and Kernell, 2016; Kernell, 1997). While a sizable body of scholarship notes the importance of presidential position‐taking during the lawmaking process (Beckmann, 2010; Cameron, 2000; Kingdon, 1989; Krehbiel, 1998), presidential scholars have given less attention to the question of how often and when presidents will engage with Congress.…”

The Contextual Presidency: The Negative Shift in Presidential Immigration Rhetoric

“…This enabled us to create a document of the compiled rhetoric of when and how the presidents negatively address immigration. As other scholars have done, we did not use content analysis software to compile and categorize the language, but instead we used human coding accompanied by a detailed and systematic codebook so that this study could be replicated in the future (Barrett , ; Cameron ; Woods and Arthur forthcoming).…”

“…Kernell () maintains that presidents “go public” with their requests with the hope that it will translate into policies. The most celebrated studies research the presidents' ability to shape the agenda with what is discussed in the State of the Union Addresses (Cohen ; Edwards and Wood ), how presidents can influence Congress (Barrett ; Canes‐Wrone ), how they can control what the media decides to report (Cohen ; Eshbaugh‐Soha and Peake ), and how they are able to shape the bureaucracy (Whitford and Yates ), as well as their ability to influence how the public approves of their performance (Druckman and Holmes ; Edwards, ), how they can change attitudes and perspectives on public policies (Eshbaugh‐Soha and Peake ), and how they can manipulate public opinion (Brace and Hinckley ; Edwards ; Welch ).…”