George C. Edwards

Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media

Influencing the policy agenda has long been viewed as one of the most important sources of political power. For decades, scholars have maintained that the president has the most significant role in setting the policymaking agenda in Washington, but little systematic empirical work has been done to measure the presidents influence. We explore the presidents success in focusing the issue attention of Congress and the mass media by evaluating time-series measures of presidential, mass media, and congressional attention to five issues: crime, education, health care, U.S.–Soviet relations, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. We find that most of the time the president reacts, responding primarily to fluctuations in media attention and world events. In domestic policy, we find a more interactive relationship, one that appears to offer the president the opportunity to act in an entrepreneurial fashion to focus the attention of others in the system on major presidential initiatives.

The Legislative Impact of Divided Government

Theory: The best test of the impact of divided government on legislative gridlock is to examine seriously considered, potentially important legislation that failed to pass under conditions of divided and unified government. To do so requires separate analyses of legislation the president opposes and supports. Hypotheses: Divided government will be associated with the president opposing more legislation and with more legislation the president opposes failing to pass. It will not be associated with the president supporting less legislation or with more legislation the president supports failing to pass. Important legislation is more likely to fail to pass under divided government. Methods: We used regression analysis of the failure of legislation to pass and the relative success of legislation over the 1947-92 period. Results: Presidents oppose significant legislation more often under divided government, and much more important legislation fails to pass under divided government than under unified government. Furthermore, the odds of important legislation failing to pass are considerably greater under divided government. However, there seems to be no relationship between divided government and the amount of significant legislation the administration supports or that passes.

Presidential Influence in the House: Presidential Prestige as a Source of Presidential Power

Presidential prestige or popularity has often been cited as an important source of presidential influence in Congress. It has not been empirically and systematically demonstrated, however, that such a relationship exists. This study examines a variety of relationships between presidential prestige and presidential support in the U.S. House of Representatives. The relationships between overall national presidential popularity on the one hand and overall, domestic, and foreign policy presidential support in the House as a whole and among various groups of congressmen on the other are generally weak. Consistently strong relationships are found between presidential prestige among Democratic party identifiers and presidential support among Democratic congressmen. Similar relationships are found between presidential prestige among the more partisan Republican party identifiers and the presidential support by Republican congressmen. Explanations for these findings are presented, and the findings are related to broader questions of American politics.

Measuring Presidential Success in Congress: Alternative Approaches

There are numerous obstacles to studying presidential-congressional relations. One of the most difficult to overcome is measuring presidential success. This article addresses the theoretical significance of the choice of measures, and develops and analyzes four alternative indices of presidential support in Congress. It concludes that usually it is best to employ individual-level measures of presidential support and that, although different measures produce similar results, it is useful to rely on both broad and exclusive measures in ones research.

Aligning Tests with Theory: Presidential Approval as a Source of Influence in Congress

Over the past twenty years there has been a growing literature regarding the impact of the presidents public approval and his success or support in Congress. Some studies have found very strong relationships while others have concluded that the relationship between presidential approval and congressional support is weak or nonexistent. Further complicating this issue is the virtual unanimity with which presidents and their aides assert the importance of the presidents public standing to an administrations legislative success. There can be little doubt that the White House invests enormous amounts of time and energy in its efforts to obtain public support for the president, but it remains unclear (at least to political scientists) how this potential resource is translated into a tool of presidential leadership in Congress. In this paper I encourage scholars to take a fresh look at the question of the impact of presidential approval on presidential support in Congress. At the center of this rethinking, I...

The Impact of Presidential Coattails on Outcomes of Congressional Elections

Presidential coattails are frequently addressed in American politics, but we know little about their impact on the outcomes in elections for the House. Yet it is here that they are most significant. If presidential coattails do affect congressional elections, they can be the cause of increased support for the president (from new representatives of his party) and increased support for policy change (from representatives of a new generation). This research examines the relationship between how well a president runs in a congressional district and the success of the congressional candidate of his party in winning the district. The analysis is done for each of the six presidential elections from 1952 through 1972, and is done separately for the North and South as well as for the country as a whole. In every instance, constituency party strength is controlled in order to isolate the impact of the presidential candidate on the congressional outcome. The basic conclusions are that presidential coattails have had a declining impact on the outcomes in congressional elections since 1952 and that in recent elections their impact has declined to the vanishing point. This, it is argued, is primarily due to the increasing lack of competitiveness of congressional districts.

Presidential Electoral Performance as a Source of Presidential Power

One of the most fertile areas of research in American politics has been that focusing on the vote in presidential elections. Most studies in this area, however, take the presidential vote as the dependent variable. This research carries the analysis further and examines the influence of the presidential vote in a congressional constituency on the support of that constituencys congressman for the Presidents policies. Using the techniques of causal modeling and path analysis, this article tests for both the direct influence of the presidential vote on presidential support and for its indirect influence through its effect on the party which wins the seat in a congressional district while controlling for the effects of constituency party strength. The basic finding is that presidential electoral performance does influence presidential support, particularly in Democratic presidential years.

The 2000 U. S. Presidential Election

This article looks at the U.S. presidential election in 2000, perhaps the closest election in American history. The author shows how the hallmark of American government, decentralization, is also apparent in the administration of elections, as state and local governments run elections, even for national offices. The diversity of election administration and the reliance on a weak infrastructure generates considerable potential for disputes in close elections, which is exacerbated by the nature of the Electoral College. In 2000, the College turned a clear but narrow victory for one candidate in the national vote totals into an extraordinarily close, highly disputed election, such that the electoral votes of a single state determined the outcome in favor of the other candidate. The author looks at the consequences of the closeness of that election, noting that the United States still lacks a clear means of resolving disputed elections. The constitutionally decentralized administration of the Electoral College-the administration of which is a state responsibility-makes it difficult to find a national solution. Historical levels of partisan polarization also discourage the search for a solution, as there is insufficient trust to allow for institutional redesign. Contested elections such as the presidential election of 2000 have an impact on the legitimacy of results and, therefore, on the ability of the new administration to establish a clear mandate to govern. As a result of the 2000 election, the nation took steps to improve the uniformity and fairness of voting procedures, and although there has been progress in decreasing the probability of disputes over individual ballots, it has done little to improve the fundamental causes of close elections or the means of resolving them.

The Obama Administration: what can social science offer?

This paper reports on the 2009 Academy of Social Sciences annual debate about prospects for the new United States administration. Just half way into the ‘first hundred days’ of President Barack Obamas term, a panel of social scientists, convened by Philip Davies, Director of the British Librarys Eccles Centre for American Studies, addressed the question of what social science could offer the new president in various areas of policy and government action. Each of the panellists was offered the opportunity to revisit their presentations in the light of the discussion that took place, and this paper brings these thoughts together. Dilys Hill introduces the contributions with an overview commentary on the debate contributions. Andrew Rudaleviges analysis of the scholarship on managing the presidency leads him to state that ‘Presidential leadership lies … in garnering the benefits of centralising without losing the wider expertise brought to bear by a decentralised process. Herein—somewhere!—lies the holy grail of Cabinet Government, American-style.’ George C. Edwards examines presidential strategies for government with the conclusion that ‘Rather than creating the conditions for important shifts in public policy, such as moving public opinion in their direction, effective leaders are the less heroic facilitators who work at the margins of coalition building to recognise and exploit opportunities in their environments.’ Jenel Virden points out that in 2008 the percentage and numerical turnout of women was higher than that for men; women voted more for Obama than did men; and they were strongly hopeful that under the new administration prospects would improve. Having engaged so successfully with this sector of the population, the Obama Administration is under pressure to recognise and address its needs. Robert Singh points out that there are necessary reservations about the utility of social science in informing an Obama foreign policy, but nonetheless elaborates three propositions and seven principles that could usefully frame the administrations approach.

Changing Their Minds? The Limits of Presidential Persuasion

Leading the public is at the core of the modern presidency. Even as they try to govern, presidents are involved in a permanent campaign. Both politics and policy revolve around presidents’ attempts to garner public support, both for themselves and for their policies. At the base of this core strategy for governing is the premise that through the permanent campaign the White House can successfully persuade or even mobilize the public. Commentators on the presidency in both the press and the academy often assume that the White House can move public opinion if the president has the skill and will to exploit the bully pulpit effectively. In journalist Sidney Blumenthal’s words regarding the permanent campaign, “The citizenry is viewed as a mass of fluid voters who can be appeased by appearances, occasional drama, and clever rhetoric.”1