Presidential Legislative Priorities and Legislators' Voting Decisions: An Exploratory Analysis

Fett, Patrick J.

doi:10.2307/2132151

Cited by 44 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Presidents have continued to rely on speeches as they govern even as parties have centralized and unified in Congress (Aldrich and Rhode 2000) and evidence mounts that speeches have limited effects on public opinion (Edwards 2003). At times, speeches have increased presidential success in Congress (Barrett 2004;Canes-Wrone 2001a;Eshbaugh-Soha 2006;Fett 1994), with a modest impact over the national, domestic policy agenda (Edwards and Wood 1999). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Presidential Speeches

Eshbaugh-Soha

2010

Congress & the Presidency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speeches are vital to modern presidential governance. We know that speeches inform others of presidents' policy preferences and allow them to meet public expectations; yet we do not know precisely what influences presidents' tendencies to deliver them. This article argues that presidents consider the potential benefit or cost of delivering speeches. Deteriorating conditions in the political environment should cause a change in presidential behavior, while improvements may encourage presidents to continue their current course of action. Using time series analysis, I find that this is indeed the case. Typically, low presidential approval ratings and a poor economy encourage presidents to deliver more and fewer policy-based speeches, respectively. Even though the "golden age" of presidential politics also matters to presidential speechmaking, individual presidents do not significantly explain speechmaking over time.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Presidential Speeches

Eshbaugh-Soha

2010

Congress & the Presidency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent works by Canes‐Wrone (2001, 2004, 2006) and Rottinghaus (2009, 2010) have shown that presidential efforts to manipulate public opinion can affect policy change, but only under certain specific conditions (see also Powell and Schloyer 2003); nevertheless, as politics in Washington have grown more polarized (see Bond and Fleisher 2000; Fleisher and Bond 2004; Theriault 2006, 2008), these moments have become increasingly elusive. Elsewhere, Eshbaugh‐Soha (2006, 2010) indicates that what is truly important in shaping legislative policy success is the president's usage of signaling as a way of making clear his priorities and preferences on passage and implementation (see also Fett 1994). Ultimately, these conclusions serve more as a complement to Edwards' overarching critique, rather than a refutation of it.…”

Section: An Evolving Understanding Of Presidential‐congressional Commmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a previous study, Eshbaugh‐Soha (2006) finds that when presidents deliver more verbose policy signals to legislators (and other actors) through speeches, they improve their policy‐making performance (see also Eshbaugh‐Soha 2008, 2010; Whitford and Yates 2003). Although it remains to be determined whether this improved performance is the result of Congress knowing more about the president's priorities (Fett 1994; Peterson 1990) or because the increased information on policy content reduces their uncertainty over substance, the pattern appears stable. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:…”

Section: Contending Explanations For Why Congress Listensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics or Policy? How Rhetoric Matters to Presidential Leadership of Congress

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine the linkage between presidential policy proposal messages and legislative success. Employing a data set on presidential legislative proposals that covers the years 1949-2010, we find that politics matters less than policy. Purely political messages that reference the electoral logic of mandates or appeal to a sense of bipartisanship appear to have no impact on presidential legislative success, nor does policy signaling, though highlighting the role of agency-based policy experts in crafting legislation does. From these results, we conclude that although the way presidents communicate their messages to Congress represents an important component of presidential-legislative relations, it is instead the perceived quality of the legislation that more strongly shapes congressional support of presidential policy efforts

show abstract

“…Thus, looking at the first year of the Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan presidencies, Patrick Fett uncovers evidence that presidents who publicly identify their legislative priorities increase the likelihood of support from their “core partisan” supporters in Congress (1994, 507‐11). In their analyses of congressional policy making during the Eisenhower and Reagan eras, Mouw and MacKuen show that when presidents “go public,” they force legislative agenda setters to make strategic concessions in the content of legislative proposals in order to increase the likelihood of legislative passage (Mouw and MacKuen 1992a, 87‐105).…”

Section: Assessing the Bargaining Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research

Dickinson

2009

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of Richard E. Neustadt's “Presidential Power” in 1960 revolutionized presidential studies—a revolution that continues today. Contrary to claims that his book “personalized” presidential studies, thus delaying research progress, scholars' efforts to grapple with Neustadt's teachings inspired some of the subfield's most significant and enduring research agendas. Many of Neustadt's most important insights, however, such as the link between information, institutions, and presidential decision making, have yet to receive the scrutiny they deserve. To take full advantage of the revolution that Neustadt started, scholars will need to avoid methodological parochialism and finger pointing and instead concentrate their efforts on putting the rest of Neustadt's claims to the test.

show abstract

Presidential Legislative Priorities and Legislators' Voting Decisions: An Exploratory Analysis

Cited by 44 publications

References 12 publications

The Politics of Presidential Speeches

The Politics of Presidential Speeches

Politics or Policy? How Rhetoric Matters to Presidential Leadership of Congress

We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About