Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership by Samuel Kernell
OVERALL:
Presidents use sympathetic crowds rally public opinion to his side (promote himself and his policies) going public remains a potent weapon in the president’s arsenal, for advocating his own agenda and blocking initiatives from adversaries in Congress.
This strategy continues to evolve given the intense polarization of Congress and the electroate AND changes in communications technology
Implications of these factors (especially in combination) on the future of presidential leadership the lessons of 9/11 on going public in foreign affairs
Going public means making direct appeals to voters in order to scare Congress into passing legislation that hte
…show more content…
so the president must mobilize the electorate to pressure Washington elites to submit to the president’s leadership.
Going public conflicts with bargaining in several ways: ** it often includes fluff, not the substantial exchanges necessary for bargaining it does not extend benefits for compliance but imposes costs for noncompliance. more like a threat than a mutually advantageous bargain it entails posturing, it hardens positions and makes bargaining more difficult it undermines the legitimacy of other politicans, Congress in particular (p3-4) individualized is the preferred strategy by modern presidents examples of successes
Chapter 3 - How the presidents entering washington have changed: outsiders and divided government
Truman: cooperation
ONLY OUTSIDERS CAN GO PUBLIC gp is a strategy for independent politicians with few group or institutional loyalties and who aren’t so interested in sacrificing short-term gain for hte longer-term advantages of bargaining. when gp, a president seeks to mobilize other politicans’ supporters on his behalf. usually, a particular audience or constituency is targeted with a particular message.
*organization is crucial to success.
Chapter 4: the President and the press how the press has led to the trend of going public charts to show trend (beginning of chapters) the Washington press corps’ relationship to executive has changed with the transformation in the political
The president’s accumulation of personal power can make up for his lack of institutional powers. The president must act as the “lubricant” for the other sectors of government in order to preserve order and accomplish business. Neustadt emphasizes the president’s ability to forge strong personal relationships and his or her
In his book Hardball, Chris Matthews discusses the useful strategies for getting ahead in politics that he observed during his time working in Washington, D.C. He breaks up his observations into chapters with different lessons. Three of the most important lessons are “It's Not Who You Know; It's Who You Get to Know,” (Chapter 1) “All Politics is Local,” (Chapter 2) and “Dance With the One That Brung Ya.” (Chapter 4). These chapters illustrate how important making and keeping connections and relationships is in Washington. The “game of politics” is played by using these relationships to gain favors, votes, support, etc. According to Matthews, the people who get ahead are the ones who make and keep these important connections and relationships with other politicians and the public.
Another of these monumental changes would be the surrender of the control of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Over the twentieth century, this became an increasing reality as the focus shifted from Congress to the president (Cooper 2009, 388). While this development has many different advantages in the American government system, there are disadvantages as well, such as a decrease in stability (Cooper 2009, 379). The role of the president has become more important because of the changes that have led to the modern world (Cooper 2009, 388). This has occurred because of a number of reasons, such as “substantial increases in the responsibilities of the federal government, the stakes of politics, and the ease of communication and travel” (Cooper 2009, 388). Furthermore, in recent years, Congress has not worked hard in certain circumstances to protect their rights but have surrendered to the executive branch (Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee 2010, 498). It is
This book is a bold work by George C. Edwards in which he shares his views of the political system in the US and how it has evolved over time. He has touched almost every president since the 1930s and brought to light some interesting details about how presidents have followed patterns and used their own style of actions to meet their unique objectives. The book describes in detail the attitudes of presidents and reflects his views on presidency. For instance, he has expressed three premises about presidential leadership: public support is used as a social resource by president, presidents must take interest in the problems of the people in order to actually garner support rather than just delivering speeches, and the public can be mobilized successfully by permanent campaigns.
The increasing power of the presidency in the domestic realm is evident in the growing ability of the president to set the policy agenda and use public opinion to control legislative outcomes. Going public is a strategy that is used by the president to promote his policies by appealing directly to the voters to pressure members of Congress to pass his legislative agenda or risk a contested primary. “Going public undermines the legitimacy of other politicians. It usurps
The phrase “going public” refers to the strategy where presidents bring issues to the public’s attention, to put pressure on congress and other areas of government to make a certain decision. A president may go public for multiple reasons, one major reason is to conjure support for their policies, and consequently side stepping an oppositional congress. An example of a president going public is when president Obama addressed the nation, and congress on gun control. President Obama called on congress to approve gun control legislation, as well as the public to vote for gun control friendly congressmen, and congresswoman. This call to action by president Obama gave the public a sense of urgency on the matter, which is a key reason presidents
The president is constantly looking toward the state of nation’s defense. All major decisions and strategies are his to make alone. Likewise, the president is the nation's number 1 political boss. People look to the president as the leader for public opinion. Even though the president seems like he couldn’t take on many other roles, he is also the Chief of State, he is the leader of the rituals of the American Democracy.
Beyond this “blunt instrument” of the executive branch’s formal constitutional powers, the presidency is largely what the president makes of it (Romance, July 27). The president’s real power is one of persuasion, or the ability to convince
We all know the president as the leader of our country, but we never really consider the many things that encompasses. He must be a Chief of State, a Chief Executive, a Commander in Chief, a Chief Diplomat, a Chief Legislator, and other various smaller roles. The President has many roles to take on and must act as all of them possibly in any given week or day. Taking a look at four random weeks in The President’s schedule I am going to identify examples of the president executing these roles, explaining why he was more active in certain roles, and why some roles are absent during these weeks.
Society turns to powerful leaders for guidance in times of uncertainty. Especially after the American Revolution, the people needed a leader to mollify the concerns entailing their newfound independence. They needed a president who could guide them like a king without creating a power vacuum, who could lead with respect without becoming corrupt, and who could put the future of the country beyond his own desires; America’s future was reliant on a leader who had these qualities. Luckily, the first president, George Washington, acted as the “good king” America heavily needed.
Commendatory public opinion on important issues can persuade other high ranking officials to support the Governor. The Governor in our
The conflicting power struggle and rival relationship between the legislative branch and the executive branch is one that has always seemed anticipated. The relationship between a President and the Legislative branch is not only essential but it is significant making it equally an extremely delicate affair. One of the main questions that experts on the workings of congress have is whether or not the legislative and executive branch are capable of effectively cooperating with one another to ultimately promote and sustain the American agenda. George H.W. Bush’s relationship with congress can be seen as a dynamic one.
Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would
The modern presidency has in a sense become a double-edged sword in that presidents have become beneficiaries of anything positive that can be attributed to government, but also can be blamed for anything bad occurring in society. Quite simply, the modern president has become the center of our political system (The Modern Presidency, 2004). The men who have dealt with this double-edged sword known as the modern presidency have often walked a very fine line between effectiveness and ineffectiveness, but all have attempted to use their power in one way or another.
The presidency occupies a unique position in all systems of government including the American system of government. The formal powers and the constitutional position occupied by the institution of the presidency are at the core of all national and international politics (Alexandrova & Timmermans, 2013). The President can serve as Commander-in-chief, nominate and appoint ambassadors, just to name a few of the powers of office. However, there is another power that is often overlooked by most, the power of agenda setting. The Constitution does not directly state this power, but it is heavily implied. This paper scrutinizes the institution of the presidency in line with agenda-setting literature. The agenda setting process relates to a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The agenda setting process has three streams that incorporate the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. The problem stream relates to potential policy problems that may have different magnitudes attached to them. The policy stream associates with an agglomeration of potential solutions to policy problems (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2010). Additionally, the politics stream links to those policy issues and solutions that