POL 313

 

The Presidency

The President and Domestic Politics

 

 

 
 

Many have called domestic policy the black hole of presidential politics. No president comes into office with a "clean slate". Already in effect are a myriad of public policies addressing a plethora of public problems affecting astounding numbers of interest groups with aggressive supporters in the Congress!

In almost every area, at almost every turn, the president is guaranteed to please or offend a series of groups and congresspersons and he is very likely to lose political support both in the Congress and across the country.

 In part, this difficult situation is merely a reflection of the interrelated nature of the complex issues which the country now faces. Theodore Lowi's classification of types of public policies gives us an opportunity to explore the relationship between types of public policies and presidential politics.

According to Lowi, there are three broad categories of public policies:

Type of Policy Distributive Regulatory Redistributive
Impact of Policy low depends broadest
Visibility low depends very high
Conflict? little great GREAT
Example agricultural policy pollution control tax reform


In relation to the presidency, according to Lowi:

Distributive policies involve limited presidential participation and extensive congressional participation (logrolling, etc.). They do not generally have an ideological thrust.

Regulatory policies involve moderate presidential involvement and extensive congressional involvement. There is often great conflict between the president and the Congress and it is often related to ideological differences about the role of the state.

Redistributive policies have extensive presidential and congressional participation, are frequently ideological, and create great tension between president and Congress.


Another political scientist, John Kessel has taken a different approach to domestic policy. He focuses on issue areas and time (when presidents are concerned about an issue area):
Area social benefits civil liberties agriculture natural resources
Time used to build support, thus most concerned at election time due to controversial nature presidents address them early in their term generally a response to crisis either long range or responsive to crisis


Whether we approach from the Lowi or Kessel perspective, it is obvious that presidents:

1) can not address all of the domestic issues;
2) would not want to address all of the issues

 Presidents thus try to pick and choose what issues to "tackle".
They adopt a number of strategies:

1) the low cost strategy of only trying to tackle those issues
which are sure political "winners"

When presidents choose the low cost approach they are often accused
of being do-nothing presidents

2) the high cost strategy of selecting (and proposing policies) in those issue areas which you feel are most important to the country and its long-term future;

When they propose to much they generally meet resistance from
Congress because of the nature of the policies themselves!

3) the good-old-middle-ground-strategy of responding to crises and then trying to move the country in certain areas via shaping the dialogue and not making proposals
Not surprisingly most presidents take the middle-ground approach!

What do you think are the most important domestic policy issues at this time?

How do they fit into the Lowi and Kessel schemes?

What actions do you personally support in these areas?

Assume you are the president, what is likely to be the nature of the conflicts related to your solutions?



Depending on your choices (and your analysis) you've probably now discovered what presidents have---that any controversial policy problems lead to great conflict!!

In part, the "professionalization of interests" has made
significant policy change problematic.

Social security change--"the gray lobby"
gun control---"the gun lobby"
tax changes---"the business lobby", "the taxpayer lobby"
civil rights--"the civil rights lobby"

Many argue that the proliferation of these lobbies (and their professionalization) is the key to understanding domestic politics in the US.  Political parties are often seen as irrelevant in the domestic policy process. They do not even provide a counterweight to the centrifugal effect of organized interests!!!


How Do Presidents Organize their Domestic Policy Approach?
It has been argued that there is a "three stream" approach to understanding presidential handling of domestic policy. The three streams are generally independent of each other with (sometimes) minimal coordination between them. The three streams are:

1) The problems and issues stream

2) the solutions stream

3) the politics stream


The Problems and Issues Stream


Problems and issues get on the president's agenda either because of unavoidability or presidential choice. Unavoidable problems include things like the oil embargo, AIDS, drug use. Often times a "focusing event" forces presidents to consider acting in a particular area (Three Mile Island or 9/11, for example). Issues that get on by choice are generally selected for one of three reasons (or a combination):

1) reelection
2) historical achievement
3) personal beliefs


The Solutions Stream


The solutions stream is often related to the politics stream. One can usually identify a number of different types of solutions from short-term ameliorative solutions to long-range curative solutions. Unfortunately, while curative solutions may be best for the public, they are often least palatable for a president. The president will get all of the grief and not be in office if the solution "works". At the other end, presidents usually like an ameliorative "solution" (it hides the problem) and they get the credit (even if the long term causes of the problem remain!).

 Unfortunately, Congress has this same perspective!

 As a result, policies are thus at best "incremental"

In many respects this runs counterintuitive to the dynamics of the policy process in the US. In many instances, the individuals and groups in "issue networks" can identify solutions to public problems. The difficulties lie in the fact that they may be costly (a difficult sell in an era of restricted resources) or politically difficult (see next section).


The Politics Stream


This is a complex mixture of the public mood (often as shaped by the media), the nature of the "pendulum of power", the balance of other political forces, and events within the government/ administration itself.

The national mood is an important (albeit difficult to define) notion. It is not the same thing as public opinion (about specific events, etc.) but more a reflection of the "temper of the times" (or perhaps similar to the "pulse of politics"). It is something, it is argued, that presidents must "feel" from the messages received from interest groups, government officials, the general public, etc. Presidents who can ascertain this mood can generally enjoy success in the policy process since their proposals will match up with the national mood. 

The media plays an important role here. The power of the media to "set the public agenda" surpasses the ability of the president in this area. The media's determination to explore (or ignore) problems has great policy consequences. 

Some have argued that the media's power to ignore makes problem-solving difficult. It is argued that the media likes simple, conflictual, high-drama stories and ignores stories/ problems which are complex and provide little drama!

 Examples: 

1) Killer tornadoes are exciting, the visuals interesting, the human drama riveting! Social security is "boring", with no visuals and little drama. Guess which gets all the coverage! ; 

2) using uzis in the school yard is exciting but did you know that violence in schools has declined over the last decade?


the current state of the "pendulum of power" makes it likely that one of the two branches is dominating the policy process


other political forces generally refer to how major groups "line up" on a particular issues. If all major political actors are in agreement, a policy change/ modification is usually "doable". If interest groups are at odds with each other, the nature of the system normally preserves the status quo. Here, the opposing group can normally marshal public opinion to oppose change! (re: Clinton administration health proposals)


events also influence the process. Such things as election outcomes, questions of jurisdiction and/or crises all effect the likelihood of policy change


Many argue that the "natural state" of the American policy process is INERTIA that is generally produced by the balance of political forces, the fragmentation of the American federal system, "cozy triangles", and general support for the status quo. 

Thus CRISIS becomes the key to significant policy change.


It is argued that these three streams merge for presidents and run through two filters. The filters involve opportunities and resources.

The opportunities filter relates to the notion of crisis. Presidents attempt to create a sense of crisis in areas they would like to address.

the resources filter is not a monetary filter. It refers to the "political capital" which a president has to spend on any policy issue. Most presidents political capital is highest at the start or their first term or after their re-election. As they make decisions they expend their political capital and find it difficult to replenish it. Thus presidents attempt to move policies they favor within the first year to 18 months of their administrations.


The Domestic Policy Apparatus

There are three key elements in the domestic policy apparatus of the President:

1) OMB

2) task forces and presidential commissions

3) domestic policy staffs

The Domestic Council
Established by Nixon in 1970 as part of a reorganization of the presidency which also saw BoB become OMB. Comprised of Pres, VPres, AttyGen, secs of Ag, comm, hud, int, lab, trans, treas, and hhs. The Council had a staff which advocated, monitored and evaluated policy. Not really used after Nixon's problems with Watergate began in 1973. Abolished by Carter in 1981 although he kept the staff. When Reagan came to power he utilized OMB, the Office of Policy Development and members of his cabinet as a domestic council. It was headed by the Director of OMB, David Stockman. This unit was primarily responsible for the "downsizing" of government activity in the domestic area during the Reagan administration. Bush maintained this system. For both Reagan and Bush, the driving force in this approach was their disinterest in domestic policy. The Clinton administration has reemphasized presidential control of domestic policy, in part due to the nature of cntemprary times and Clinton's own interests in the area.