Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to establish an instrument to measure the environmental accomplishments of two recent presidents, namely, George H. W. Bush (Bush41) and George W. Bush (Bush43). We have examined their accomplishments paying attention to which presidents have best used the resources of their office to achieve environmental success. To assess the records of these two presidents, we made use in our analysis of an Index of Greenness, that we previously developed, that uses indicators organized into three categories: 1) political communication; 2) presidential actions, and 3) sources of support. To further assess the achievements of these two presidents we used Bill Clinton's environemntal accomplishments during both his first term (Clinton 1) and second term (Clinton 2) as a control to provide context for observing the two Bush presidencies.

Our findings show that Bush (41) ranked third among the four presidential administrations, while Bush (43) ranked last. Clinton's second term (Clinton 2) ranked best followed by Clinton's first term (Clinton 1) ranking second based on these indicators. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush represent presidents who failed to meet their self-imposed obligations--namely, an environmetnal presidency and a president who wished to show compassion in his public policy initiatives toward the environment. Environmentalism clearly fared better during the two terms of Bill Clinton. We anticipate that our efforts in this paper will give us insights concerning the contributions that other presidents have made over time in their efforts to deal with the environment.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: New Presidents and Network News: Covering the First Year in Office of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

Abstract

Content analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news programs during the first years of the presidencies of Ronald Reagan (1981), Bill Clinton (1993) and George W. Bush (2001) revealed a heavy focus on the executive branch rather than the legislative and judicial branches. The negative tone of network news coverage was very similar across the three presidents and their administrations. Coverage of presidents in their first year in office consistently was far more substantial than coverage of presidential candidates, where issues of the campaign “horse race” trump matters of substance. Network news coverage of George W. Bush after the 2001 attacks was more positive in tone when compared to coverage before September 11, even though the amount of coverage of Bush personally fell after the attacks. Network news coverage of the rest of the Bush administration increased after September 11, but it turned more negative in tone during the final months of 2001.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In presidential studies, presidential behavior is typically defined or explained in terms of political attitude, psychology, bargaining skills, managerial style, or behavior constrained in and by political time. As a society with the highest level of religiosity among advanced democracies and a rich tradition of religion mixing with politics, we should expect that religion might also influence the behavior and decision-making of certain American presidents. In this paper, with reference to two recent Presidents - Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush - it will be argued that Presidents’ personal religious beliefs can have a powerful influence over their actions and decisions.

Specifically, the foreign policies of these two presidents will be examined and compared in terms of their attitudes on war and peace, the use of force, human rights, and the role or mission of the United States in the world. It will be argued that, while Carter and Bush had different policies on, for example, the use of force in international affairs, their essential behavior in foreign policy was similarly guided by their religious faith. Both presidents were unilateralists; convinced that they were on God’s side, doing what they believed the Bible commanded, and often perceived as approaching the international community in absolutist - “you are with us or against us” – terms. This created obvious problems for American diplomacy during both presidencies. Moreover, Presidents whose conduct in office is guided by religion also tend to be polarizing leaders at home, evoking responses of both admiration and contempt from the general public.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper starts from the position that the ‘Transatlantic Crisis’ of the early 2000s has also on the face of it been a crisis for EU collective action in external policy: instead of a ‘Europe that can say no’ in the light of US challenges, there appears to have been a failure to produce any consensus on policy. Most obviously, the chaos of EU Member State responses to the approach and conduct of the Iraq war raised questions about the continuing feasibility of EU collective action in such episodes, throwing doubt for some on the future development of ‘European foreign policy’. But this turbulent episode must be placed within the broader context of developments in EU external collective action and EU-US relations, and can usefully be analysed through concepts of collective action theory. The paper pursues such an analysis, first by reviewing the implications of a ‘Europe that can say no’ to the US, next by briefly summarising the narratives provided by other approaches, and then by setting out relevant collective action concepts. It then argues that collective action possibilities and processes in EU external policy lie on a spectrum delineated by a number of key factors and that therefore analysis and evaluation should take account of the unevenness and variation between sectors of policy. In this light, the ‘EU crisis’ of the early 2000s becomes part of a much broader picture in which the EU has scored notable successes as well as policy failures.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This study examines the “traditional/modern” paradigm advocated by scholars in the study of the Presidency in American Politics. This distinction advises a separation of presidential history into two categories on the basis of policy proposal and rhetorical proclivity: namely the “traditional” period (from the founding to the early 20th century) and the “modern” period (from the early 20th century presidency to the present). In this study, I take issue with whether or not such a categorization can properly be made given the changing contexts, powers, and personalities of the presidency.
I examine the State of the Union Addresses from George Washington to George W. Bush in order to analyze a consistently utilized form of presidential address and to determine changes in policy activism and the evolution of the modern rhetorical presidency. I find that presidents from the founding have both proposed policy and used popular address rhetoric within in their State of the Union Addresses. I also learn that presidents of the late 20th century have increased the average number of policies that they propose in the State of the Union Address as well as used increasing levels of popular address rhetoric. The trends revealed in these findings suggest that the powers and activity of the presidency may have evolved slowly from the founding to the present as opposed to undergoing a significant transformation as the result of the innovations of a single president or administration.