The Going Public Strategy from Reagan to Bush - Essay Example

The Going Public Strategy from Reagan to Bush When we think of the President of the United States the terms ‘constitutional limits’ and ‘congressional powers’ don’t often come to mind. What we see, and what is often projected to us in the media, is a person with as limitless a power as you can find in a democratically run country. Of course, this is an illusion. The President of the United States, from the day he steps into office, is faced with restrictions on his power that are substantial and very real. One of the ways Presidents have found to deal with these constitutional limits has been to appeal to public support on issues of great importance; what is commonly referred to as ‘going public.’ In fact, with the drastic changes in media exposure in the past twenty years, ‘going public,’ has almost become a science with American presidents from Reagan to George W. Bush. Through these twenty years we have seen this science developed to such an extent that we have to ask whether it is public opinion that shapes presidential initiatives or presidential initiatives that shape public opinion in the United States. The Nature of Going Public Going public can be defined as the president making a conscious appeal for support to the nation as a whole. Major public addresses allow Presidents to speak to the American public on national primetime television and can have the added affect of driving up their popularity on polls. The Nature of the American Political System Richard Nuestadt once claimed, “we have not so much a government of separated powers as a government of separated institutions sharing powers” (qtd Hendrick (1988) p. 15). Since George Washington first stepped into office American presidents have had to pass their initiatives through Congress. The high hopes Presidents have when they come to office can quickly be smashed by a majority of the opposing party in either house. As a result of this, Presidents have to use various means to help them in their quest for passing bills through Congress. One of the most prominent of these is going public on issues of great importance, such as passing a budget or reforming an important area of government. In addition, Samuel Kernel believes that this public leadership strategy has become even more of a necessity in an era where members of Congress act as “free agents, ignoring traditional institutional arrangements in favor of public pressure from constituents and interest groups” (qtd in Mathew Corrigan) Bargaining between the Presidency and the legislature has become, to a large extent, ineffective. Presidencies in the Age of Information The impact in the growth and importance of media, especially television, over the last thirty years has been essential in the promotion of going public strategies. Corrigan (2001) claims that in the information age of the new century, “presidents have new outlets to go public. Media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, and C-Span provide national coverage to even minor public addresses. Video-teleconferencing offers the president the ability to speak to groups across the country from the Oval Office.” The Reagan Presidency No administration was more sharply affected by the media boom than Ronald Reagan’s. A master at video politics, Reagan took advantage of his public appeal to the fullest extent. Jacobs and Shapiro (2001) claim that, “the Reagan years are pivotal in understanding recent and future developments regarding the relationship between public opinion and presidential behaviour.” Reagan’s reputation as a strong president was built to a large extent through media portrayals. Riding on the wave of high public opinion Reagan appealed to the public to accept the proposed reversal in tax and spending policies outlined in the budget of 1981. The attempt on his life by John W. Hinckely, Jr., was the last media boost he needed to push through his reforms. Lewis (2001) claims that, “During the first two years of the Reagan presidency, for example, the press continually repeated the assumption that Ronal Reagan was an extremely popular president. Although this was an assertion informed by a few highly selective nuggets of polling data, it was flatly contradicted by a series of comparative polls—including the media's own—that suggested Reagan was one of the least popular presidents in the postwar era” (p. 43). The Bush Presidency From the onset of his presidency, George Bush suffered from comparisons made between his leadership style and that of this predecessor. Rozell (1996, p. 28) claims that, “When it comes to the use of speech and symbolism, no modern president, except perhaps Harry S Truman, has had a more difficult act to follow than George Bush. How could any president, especially George Bush, look good after Ronald Reagan?” In addition, George Bush did not have clear policy objectives and did not seem to want to take advantage of the early stage of his administration, as most presidents do, to push forward their policies. Rozell claims that, “a president's actions during his first several weeks in office have an enormous, perhaps exaggerated, impact on the man's press image” (P.27) Bush’s actions in the aftermath of the Gulf War proved that he was not a going public kind of president. The war was short and produced fewer casualties than expected yet Bush did nothing to take advantage of the 90 percent approval rating he had at its close. Siegel (2001) claims that, “he squandered this unusual groundswell of popular support and did virtually nothing in terms of a policy agenda. He lost a golden opportunity to build on the momentum of his "victory" in the Gulf War.” The Clinton Presidency The presidency of Bill Clinton provides us with some of the most clear-cut examples of going public strategies in the past twenty years. His failed attempts to push through health care reform on the basis of public support, despite the Democratic majority in both houses, brings into context some of the limitations of going public. Despite Clinton’s efforts the healthcare reform never even made it to a floor vote in the House of the Senate. When Clinton first introduced the plan in a televised event response was overwhelmingly favourable but in the following months intense lobbying by interest groups, Republican opponents and the Whitewater and sexual harassments scandals destroyed the initiative in its infancy. The scandals took the greatest toll by taking up precious media time and as well as having a negative impact on Clinton’s public image. Corrigan claims that one of the most important factors of going public is the ability of the President to dominate the news. He states, “For the going public strategy to be successful, the public's attention must be retained over a long period of time. Accordingly, the public's focus on the president and his policies must also be retained. During congressional consideration of health care reform, the Whitewater controversy dominated newspaper headlines.” An additional problem was that of the oversupply of information to the public. The pure amount of information provided by the administration on public healthcare was overwhelming thing for most to digest. Paul Starr (1995) states, “The lesson for next time in health reform is faster, smaller. We made the error of trying to do too much at once, took too long, and ended up achieving nothing.” Additionally Corrigan (2001) claims, most of the studies concerning the failure of health care reform operate on the assumption that Congress did not act on the Clinton reform plan because the administration was unable to persuade the public that the plan was needed.” The extensive lobbying and use of issue adds by interest groups were final factors contributing to the failure of Clinton’s plan. The drastic change in media coverage of such issues in the past twenty years had opened the door to interest groups to publicly challenge the President. Corrigan claims, “Some of these groups can use considerable financial resources to publicly campaign against a presidential initiative.” The budget of 1995 found President Clinton trying to stop an initiative rather than push it through. The debate concerning budget priorities began with the Republican takeover of Congress in January of 1995. Republicans advocated a balanced budget in seven years with a combination of tax cuts and substantial revisions to reduce the rate of spending on government programs, most significantly in Medicare. President Clinton largely ignored their recommendations and introduced a budget plan that took very few of their recommendations into consideration. The result of this was a debate that led to two government shutdowns. When Republican’s demanded that Clinton sign a reconciliation bill that would cut Medicare significantly Clinton responded by vetoing the bill and going public on the issue with an ad campaign. Corrigan states that, “This ad campaign, funded through the Democratic National Committee, was successful in transforming the federal budget from an arcane economic forecast to a basic representation of the country's values.” Eventually the Republicans agreed to a compromise budget that kept spending much the same as the year before. The George W. Bush Presidency George W. Bush has gone public in his effort to promote the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Baker and Balz (2005, A01) claim that the president's addresses to the public on the issue show a strategy that can only be based on the extensive study of public opinion. They claim of the war in Iraq that, “The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won” (p.A01). This example leads us to disturbing question. To what extent is public opinion forming government and to what extent is government forming public opinion? Cook and Manza (2002) claim that research and theory on the affect public opinion has on government is mixed. They state that, some analysts have found a strong, persisting impact of public opinion on public policy. Yet others reject the idea that the public has consistent views at all, or even if it does, that those views are independent of manipulation by elites and/or exercise much influence over policymaking. Still others view the relationship as more mixed, with public opinion having greater influence in some contexts than others (p. 3) Jacobs and Shapiro (2001) side with those who argue that public opinion has little influence on policy decisions. In fact, they argue that the influence of public opinion is declining while politician’s goals are driving important policy decisions. They claim that public opinion research, in fact, is being used to “identify the language, symbols, and arguments to "win" public support for their policy objectives. Responsiveness to public opinion and manipulation of public opinion are not mutually exclusive; politicians manipulate public opinion by tracking public thinking to select the actions and words that resonate with the public.” Conclusion Presidents have been going public in search of support on major issues for hundreds of years in America, yet, the last twenty years have seen significant changes in its form. The growth and change in communications and the inclusion of interest groups and other non-governmental bodies in its midst is reshaping the nature of going public. In addition, the increasing difficulties Presidents are facing in passing initiatives through Congress is forcing Presidents to rely more on public support for their initiatives. The end result is that research companies are now advising presidencies not only how to gain public opinion but how to change it to their liking. Works Cited Baker, P., Balz, D. (2005, June 30). Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy Washington Post, A01 Cook, F.L., Manza, J., (2002). Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy Oxford University Press Corrigan, M., (2001). The Disconnect between “Going Public” and the Rational Public in Presidential Policy Making White House Studies, vol.1 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_1_1/ai_80605878 Smith, H. (1988) The Power Game Jacobs, L.R., Shapiro, R.Y., (2001). Presidents, Polling Politicians, Pandering, and the Study of Democratic Responsiveness Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol. 31, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0360-4918 Lewis, J. (2001). Political Elites Do What they Like and Why We Seem to Go Along With it. Columbia University Press Rozell, M. (1996). The Press and the Bush Presidency Praeger Siegel, M.E., (2001). “Lessons in Leadership from Three American Presidents” Journal of Leadership Studies vol. 8, http://www.nova.edu/cwis/vpaa/nsujournals.html Starr, P. (1995) What Happened to Health Care Reform? The American Prospect 20 (Winter). pp 20-31 Read More