What is "the national agenda"?

the national agenda consists of the issues on which the public concentrates at any given time that affect the distribution of power and may determine future elections

Most argue that the Founding Fathers, fearful of a "soft demagogue" did not want the executive to "respond to every sudden seizure of passion"  nor did they want the executive to create those passions !!  Hence the separation of powers and checks and balances system of government.

What has changed?

The two things we explored in the last section of the course: 

1) the growth of political parties in the selection process; and

2) the media

have altered public expectations !!

19th century presidential rhetoric was constrained by expectations that the president would give patriotic rather than partisan speeches as they toured the country.  Only four presidents in the 19th century gave speeches which attacked or supported specific legislation.  Some sitting presidents didn't even campaign during re-election bids.

20th century presidential rhetoric changes this approach!  As the media develops, and as president's begin to recognize the power of "the bully pulpit" , presidents begin to "go over the head of the Congress" and speak directly to the American people!  They begin to talk about "the public interest" (perhaps because they believed that Congress had become the captive of "special interests !!)  Teddy Roosevelt encourages "muckraking journalists" to encourage public outrage.  In 1913, Wilson gives the State of the Union message to the Congress , reversing a century long tradition precedent of written messages started by Jefferson.  As media becomes more powerful, the "public presidency grows".

Indicators of the change:

The growth of the media component of the White House staff

using a campaigning mode/ style for policy initiatives

the growth of supra-constitutional roles via public expectations

the President now sets "the public agenda"

presidents take advantage of opportunities to expand their initiatives at "the expense of Congress".  Nearly a half-century ago Senator A. Ribicoff of Connecticut lamented:

"Congress doesn't have any ideas of its own !!"

Does Congress just respond?

Does it change when there is "divided government"

"Going Public"

 

Lyndon Johnson: "When traditional methods fail, a President must be willing to bypass the Congress and take the issue to the people.  By instinct and experience, I preferred to work from within, knowing that good legislation is the product not of public rhetoric but of private negotiations and compromise.  But sometimes a President has to put Congress' feet to the fire." (Remember:  Johnson spent most of his political life in legislatures !!! )

When presidents "go public" --- they can succeed or they can fail !!

Going public means:

1) winning public approval of a significant policy change by appealing directly to the American public through the media

2) pressuring Congress to follow despite legislative misgivings

Successes include: T Roosevelt (trusts), FD Roosevelt (New Deal), JF Kennedy (racial segregation) and LB Johnson (Great Society)

Failures include:  HS Truman (national health care), R Nixon (Watergate), G Ford ("whipping inflation"), Carter (energy), Bush I (the economy) Clinton (national health care)

Going Public and Public Opinion Polls 

Some argue that going public works when you are popular and doesn't work when you are unpopular. 

Are public opinion polls on presidents a continuous referendum on presidential leadership?

Must Congress respond to presidents riding high in the polls?

Does Congress ignore a president low in the polls?

Bush approval chart

Bush job approval ratings

When we explore the opportunity connection, we'll look at three areas:

Domestic Policy

Economic Policy

National Security Policy

In all three areas, presidential/ congressional relations vary slightly but there are some important similarities of action/ strategy/ and general outcome. And they relate to our earlier discussion of prerogative powers and what happens when prerogative powers are used!

(Remember, we've talked about constitutional vs. supra-constitutional roles!!)

While the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) clearly gives Congress legislative powers, presidents have always had some legislative power as part of the system of checks and balances. Since the beginning of the twentieth century presidents have acquired a greatly expanded legislative role. This is generally attributed to
the rapid industrialization and urbanization
which took place at the end of the nineteenth--
beginning of the twentieth centuries ("Wagner's Law").

Both T Roosevelt and Wilson argued that presidents needed to be
actively involved in coping with the growing problems associated with these two dynamics.

Theodore Roosevelt, seeing the Presidency as a "bully pulpit":

1) developed his own legislative agenda,

2) reinstated the practice of personally delivering the State of the Union message,

3) used his cabinet members to build support for his legislative agenda, and

4) personally lobbied for his some important measures
such as the Federal Reserve Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Presidential legislative leadership expanded during FD Roosevelt's administration. Taking over during the Great Depression, Roosevelt called Congress into a special 100 day session during which Congress passed a series of pieces of legislation to meet the economic crisis including:

1) overhauling the banking system,

2) regulating financial markets,

3) authorizing industrial self-government under
the National Recovery Administration (see, there was another NRA!),

4) buttressing farm prices, etc.

FDR generally sent messages to Congress that
analyzed a problem and outlined the solution.

He prepared a draft of the legislation and
assigned aides to monitor and lobby for passage.

By 1935 this process was administered by the Bureau of the Budget.

He also utilized the veto (over 600 times!) as a means of bending Congress to his will.

FDR thus established the public expectation (and institutional expectation) that presidents would be actively involved in all stages of the legislative process!!

(can you also see where we get the supra-constitutional role of president as the "manager of the economy"?)