Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: ABSTRACT: Scholars are engaged in a long-running dispute regarding the merits of “politicizing” the Office of Management and Budget (formerly the Bureau of the Budget). In this debate, Franklin Roosevelt’s BoB and Richard Nixon’s OMB are often characterized as exhibiting “neutral” and “responsive” competence, respectively. Despite these organizational differences, however, we suggest that the administrative strategies utilized by FDR and Nixon vis a vis the BoB/OMB are driven by similar motives: both presidents sought to make the budget agency more responsive to their leadership needs. However, because they presided in different political and policy contexts, their administrative strategies took distinctly different forms. Our analysis suggests that the meaning of responsiveness varies over time and political context.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Researchers have extensively documented the atmosphere of mutual antagonism and analyzed the U.S. media coverage of the Nixon administration leading up to his 1974 resignation. But scant research has focused on the relationship between Nixon’s well-documented intimidation and manipulation campaigns and the critical intra-media discursive response. Focusing on the presidential coverage and intra-media discourse during 1972 and using the historical method of textual analysis, this study suggests that the resulting critical media response manifested itself in two ways: that it triggered a general reaffirmation for and renewed articulation of the journalistic adversarial mission; and that it also prompted serious discussion about the need for self-policing mechanisms within the news media.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: “Presidential power in an era of divided government”.
While this may sound paradoxical, the modern governmental context
highlights the reality of this statement. Given the modern political
environment where public opinion is the currency of individualized
pluralism, Samuel Kernell (1997) claims that ‘going public’ represents
the most effective strategy for presidential influence. Paul Light
(1999) asserts that agenda setting can be a formidable source of
presidential influence: “…control of the agenda becomes a primary tool
for securing and extending power” (2). Although a rich agenda setting
literature exists which is frequently utilized to examine congressional
policy making and its subsequent implications for representation writ
large (e.g. Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; Baumgartner and Jones
1993), studies of presidential agenda setting are more sparse (Light
1999; Cohen 1995). The presidencies of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon
present a unique opportunity to explore problem definition and agenda
setting in the context of the domestic policy arena. Intriguing aspects
of the policy process are overlooked when scholars myopically hone in
on the legislative branch to the (relative) exclusion of the executive
branch. This paper endeavors to illuminate the important role that two
presidents played in setting the welfare reform agenda. As such, an
exploration of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan as a case of policy
failure and Clinton’s Welfare Reform as a case of policy success will
undoubtedly shed new theoretical insight and raise questions for future
research in the areas of problem definition and presidential agenda
setting. Indeed, these two policy cases amply demonstrate the
inseparability of the concepts of problem definition and agenda
setting. Finally, a ‘window of opportunity’ exists to test different
theories of agenda setting for efficacy with regard to the president. A
perusal of presidential rhetoric, in the form of speeches, press
releases, and other public statements, will be utilized to determine
the extent to which welfare reform permeated Nixon and Clinton’s public
strategies. Furthermore, Deborah Stone’s theory of causal stories will
serve as an analytical framework whereby an examination of competing
efforts to define the problem both within and outside the presidential
arena will be conducted. Since the initial framing and definition of a
policy problem has a significant impact on the shape and tenor of a
policy, presidential agenda setting has real implications for public
opinion concerning and congressional estimations about public policies,
particularly salient ones like welfare reform.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: I fully explore the nature of presidential contacts with members of Congress using conversations from both the Johnson and Nixon administrations.