Going Public
The book I did was called going public by Samuel Kernell. Kernell is a well know Professor of Political Science. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, 1975 and has taught at University of California, San Diego since 1977. His has an interest in all aspects of American politics. in more recent years his teaching and research have been on the presidency, political communication and American political history. Samuel Kernell defends going public as the strategy of appealing to the public to get Congress to do what the President Wants. He uses a few examples such as Clinton and the Health Care Reform and George W. Bush with the Homeland Security Bill To support his clam, he does research to …show more content…
The answer per Kernell is the 1. Growth of the welfare state meaning Constituencies outside of D.C. 2. Modern Communications. We see the president in news every day and more as times go on. 3. It’s Easier to mobilize public opinion 4. Decline of Political Parties Divided Government, it’s harder to bargain with individual members, especially if different party.
Implications of Going Public Congress will listen only if the President has high levels of approval this would be anything above 50%. I also found it interesting that every president since Carter has had an in-house (White House) pollster their main job was to constantly track public approval of President and opinion over the issues. This gave insight on whether a president should go public or not. Like I stated prior congress would only listen to a president with a 50% or above approval …show more content…
The president can be hurt or even embarrassed if going public fails. therefore, the threat of going public is employed more often than the act. The message must be latently popular (see Canes-Wrone 2001).
Also, it’s not good for a president to go public too often or the public will become fatigued. Going public generates resentment in Congress (since it is, at root, a threat and a shot at their electoral base There is some loss of flexibility involved. (However, Reagan often staked out a position and then caved in.) Finally, going public is a strategy of weakness; When you can 't win by other means, going public is the last resort. After reading this book I looked in to some additional works from the author. The book was originally written in 1997. As of 2014 his later work has suggested that "going public" might be losing some of its effectiveness or at least that it is growing more difficult. With the rise of cable television, the public is increasingly difficult to reach, forcing presidents to be more strategic in requesting `network
The book I did was called going public by Samuel Kernell. Kernell is a well know Professor of Political Science. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, 1975 and has taught at University of California, San Diego since 1977. His has an interest in all aspects of American politics. in more recent years his teaching and research have been on the presidency, political communication and American political history. Samuel Kernell defends going public as the strategy of appealing to the public to get Congress to do what the President Wants. He uses a few examples such as Clinton and the Health Care Reform and George W. Bush with the Homeland Security Bill To support his clam, he does research to …show more content…
The answer per Kernell is the 1. Growth of the welfare state meaning Constituencies outside of D.C. 2. Modern Communications. We see the president in news every day and more as times go on. 3. It’s Easier to mobilize public opinion 4. Decline of Political Parties Divided Government, it’s harder to bargain with individual members, especially if different party.
Implications of Going Public Congress will listen only if the President has high levels of approval this would be anything above 50%. I also found it interesting that every president since Carter has had an in-house (White House) pollster their main job was to constantly track public approval of President and opinion over the issues. This gave insight on whether a president should go public or not. Like I stated prior congress would only listen to a president with a 50% or above approval …show more content…
The president can be hurt or even embarrassed if going public fails. therefore, the threat of going public is employed more often than the act. The message must be latently popular (see Canes-Wrone 2001).
Also, it’s not good for a president to go public too often or the public will become fatigued. Going public generates resentment in Congress (since it is, at root, a threat and a shot at their electoral base There is some loss of flexibility involved. (However, Reagan often staked out a position and then caved in.) Finally, going public is a strategy of weakness; When you can 't win by other means, going public is the last resort. After reading this book I looked in to some additional works from the author. The book was originally written in 1997. As of 2014 his later work has suggested that "going public" might be losing some of its effectiveness or at least that it is growing more difficult. With the rise of cable television, the public is increasingly difficult to reach, forcing presidents to be more strategic in requesting `network