The President and the Political System
The role of divided government plays a key component in the relationship between the president and Congress. Divided government is when the president is from one party and one or both houses of Congress have a majority in the opposite party. In the past fifty years of our country, thirty-four of them have been under divided government. Some scholars say that when the majority party in either house of Congress is the not the same as the president than conflict is inevitable. In 1992, both George Bush and Bill Clinton blamed divided government for slowing government down and voters questioned in an Election Day poll agreed that unified government is more effective (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
When the president and Congress are from different political parties, each party has clashing views on national policy. Each party wants to block the other party’s legislative agenda because they do not want voters to credit the opposing party. In a two-party system, the job of the political party opposite the president is to oppose the president. When each party only controls party of the policymaking process, the voters cannot hold either party accountable (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
Other scholars have argued that divided government protects either political party from gaining too much control and that cooperation between the president and Congress is not hurt by partisan differences. In a 1996 poll, most independent voters and 19% of Democrats said they would prefer a Republican Congress if President Clinton was reelected (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
According to David Mayhew, a defender of divided government, Congress passes the same number of laws whether or not there is united or divided government. Between 1946 and 1990 there has been no noticeable difference in the performance of government whether or not the government was united or divided at the time. Divided government, except for the 1980’s, has not resulted in larger budget deficits (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
Divided control has kept the president and Congress from agreeing on many domestic issues but on foreign matters such as defense spending both parties work together to find a solution. The overwhelming popularity of pulling out of Vietnam in 1969 led to a decrease in defense spending each year until 1977. The divided-control government under Presidents Nixon and Ford as well as the unified-control government under President Carter were in support of defense cuts. Likewise, the increase in support for the war on terrorism led to Democrats in Congress backing the Bush administration in increasing defense spending (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
In regards to domestic issues, Sinclair argues that unified partisan control contributes to more cooperation of Congress to the goals of the president. Members of a political party tend to share the same perspectives on policies. This leads them and the president to agree to the basic principle of the policy and thus contributes to better presidential-congressional cooperation. Presidential success can help meet the electoral goals of party members in the same party as the president can help convince voters that the party can effectively govern (Sinclair, 2004).
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal lead to the creation of a modern presidency that would have less ties with political parties. Many from his party, the Democratic Party, did not support his programs. His philosophy on political parties was that they were based on state and local interests and would have to be transformed to a national executive-oriented system. He believed that the president should dominate the party and help the party lead the country (Milkis, 2003).
The presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush led to the transformation of political parties that changed the relationships that parties have with political parties. The political party at the national level raised funds and provided services for their party’s state and local candidates. A party system emerged that was compatible with the philosophy of the New Deal. This means that political parties provided more resources to different levels of its own party just like the New Deal provided more resources to Americans. Reagan, a strongly conservative president, lead the Republican Party to commit to programs such as regulatory relief and new federalism (Milkis, 2003).
One of the contributing factors of the Democratic Party losing seats in the 1994-midterm elections is the failure of President Bill Clinton to compromise with Republicans about the proper role of government in developing a national health care system. By promising a program that would have been as drastic as the New Deal and failing to deliver, Clinton lost the support of many party loyalists. Conservatives were angered that Clinton did not advocate a program that would be more moderate. They would have liked to see a program that did not increase the power of government so drastically (Milkis, 2003).
Those presidents who have had successful presidential-congressional relationships, namely Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan were able to mobilize a majority of Republicans and the conservative Democrats. This mobilization is not unusual because Democratic conservatives and Republican centrists often cross party lines and presidents who successfully cater to these groups will be able to get their goals accomplished (Dickinson, 2003).
The role that public plays in a president’s efforts to get Congress to pass legislation is very powerful since it is not in the president’s best interest to enact a bill that runs against public opinion. It is more costly to the president to enact a bill that would ultimately hurt him in the next election than it would be for Congress to enact a bill that would run against public opinion (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
Rockman argues that when there are periods of low partisanship, presidents reach to the public by choosing the ideological center while during periods of high partisanship, presidents reach to the public by sticking with the opinions of their political party. Bill Clinton’s presidency sought to be in the ideologically center in the hopes of making the opposition seem extreme. He was also relying on the fact that most people take moderate opinions about issues that they do not care about (Rockman, 2004). In general, most voters only care about policies that directly affect them.
Presidents who are not partisan risk alienating the members of their party who are strongly partisan. Rifts in political parties can start when the president advocates a policy that is not popular within those making up the majority of the party serving either chamber of Congress. An example of this is Jimmy Carter in 1976 whose initiative for changes in the energy policy pitted Democrats in Congress. Those coming from states that were primarily energy suppliers were on one side of the debate while those coming from states that were primarily energy users made up the other side (Rockman, 2004).
When presidents deal with Congress, they must remember that they need each other to achieve their interests. Legislative policy can only change when Congress passes a bill and the president signs it unless Congress is able to override a president’s veto, which rarely happens. Congress and the president have complimentary interests, ones that both actors can agree on, and conflicting interests, ones that results in fighting between both actors. Presidents under unified government should work more closely with Congress with legislation while presidents under divided government should be more willing to compromise to gain the support of moderates in Congress (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
Most recently, President George W. Bush and the Democratic Senate wanted an economic stimulus package, a complimentary interest. The president wanted to see tax cuts while the Democrats wanted more spending, a conflicting interest. In order to seek agreement, the president and Congress make offers and counteroffers. Either side can threaten to block action or they can invent new solutions to enact a bill (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
The success of the president and Congress depends on their bargaining power. The gains of an agreement will fall to the actor who can walk away from the bargaining table more easily because that actor does not have that much to lose if no deal is made. Such an actor is able to demand more from the opposing actor. Both sides must compromise if negotiations are on equal terms. It is possible for both sides to win to some degree but usually one side will benefit through a compromise more than the other side. The ability for the president to know how much he can push Congress will help him gain a distinct advantage in getting more of his legislative agenda accomplished (Quirk & Nesmith, 2003).
The president’s ability to go directly to the media with his proposals greatly increases the chance that he can gain public support. The media often acts as a watchdog mediator between government and the public. The ability for government to enact legislation highlighting public concerns became apparent after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush immediately went to the people and explained the importance of military force against the terrorists (Sinclair, 2004). He gained the support in getting a bill quickly passed by Congress to create legislation that would “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [President Bush] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons” (Sinclair, 123, 2004).
Understanding the relationship that interest groups have with both Congress and the presidency is important in understanding how legislation is passed. Often times, interest groups concentrate their time on government institutions like Congress because these members are usually in office for a long period versus the president who can only serve in office for a maximum of eight years. Interest groups also realize that Congress is much more accessible than the White House (Tichenor, 2003).
Even though Congress plays a vital role in drafting legislation into law, the modern presidency allows a president to influence Congress through public agenda setting, policy formulation, federal budgets, details of implementation, judicial nominations and appointments, and executive orders. As a result, interest groups provide money, organization support, and votes for presidential candidates in both the primary and general elections. Presidents receive assistance from interest groups but interest groups more readily rely on support from members of Congress. As a result, presidents have the power to demobilize organized interests, create new organized interests, or influence the preferences of an interest group (Tichenor, 2003).
The relationship an interest group has with the president is dependent on the relationship an interest group has with the president’s political party and the opportunities for the president to be a leader in creating policy. Both Roosevelt’s New Deal for labor and Reagan’s close ties to the Christian Right were influenced by the president’s broad capacity to exercise policy leadership, which lead to breakthrough politics. Another factor which influenced both Roosevelt’s and Regan’s success in accomplishing their goals was the fact that their political parties were affiliated with interest groups.
Some presidents have a narrow capacity to exercise policy leadership despite the fact that their party is affiliated with an interest group. George Bush’s policies on clean air, the Competitiveness Council policy are two examples of this and a third example would be Clinton’s policy on NAFTA. Some president’s parties do not have a relationship with an interest group but it is still possible for their policy to be successful. This is accomplished solely through their broad capacity to lead in developing breakthrough politics initiatives. Examples of such initiatives include Roosevelt and the Liberty League and Reagan’s assault on liberal citizens groups (Tichenor, 2003).
The White House has not used interest group relations to help elevate Bush’s standing in the country. The Bush administration has worked with interest groups in policymaking and this is particularly noticeable in the close relationship the administration has had with energy companies in developing energy policies. This close relationship comes at a cost, oil and gas gave a total of $25.6 million in hard-money and soft-money contributions to Republican candidates and the party from 1999 to 2000. Interest groups can easily influence a presidency with such large contributions (Peterson, 2004).
Sinclair says that the Constitution puts the president in the weaker position in terms of his relationship with Congress. Obviously, the framers wanted the Congress, as a body, to be in charge of legislative action more than a president, who is a single individual. Article I Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Legal Information Institute, 2004).
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution explains that before bills can become law they must be passed by both the House and Senate and then must be signed by the president or can be vetoed by the president and passed again requiring two-thirds of the majority in each chamber. Article II, Section 3 explains that the role of the president is to recommend to Congress matters that he sees as important. Legislators have come to expect from the president a program of legislation he would like to see passed. Although presidents have a large list of items they would like to see passed, the most important are mentioned in the State of the Union address (Dickinson, 2003).
The president is dependent on Congress to create new programs, appropriate money to carry out existing programs, approve top-level personnel, and agree as a body on decisions the president is making. Many decisions that the president makes can be hindered by Congressional action as the result of the checks and balances system setup between the Executive and Legislative branches of U.S. Government. (Sinclair, 2004). Presidents are unable to dramatically overstep their constitutional power because of the checks and balance system.
Through the modern presidency, presidents make appropriate use of their constitutional power by working more with their parties. Presidents who try to greatly deviate from their political parties often create more gridlock in Congress than those who support their party’s agenda in creating appropriate legislation. Popular appeals from political parties by party members can be heard over appeals that deal with collective responsibility. Presidents should remember that many unsuccessful presidential-congressional relationships have been the result of a lack of compromise on the part of the president.
