Presidential agenda-setting and public appeals in policymaking

American Presidency

How Presidents can influence the policymaking process to suit their needs

constitution has created the executive branch and the executive power vested in the hands of the president. In fact, the president cannot act in isolation in running the executive branch. The president depends on the executive office staff and agencies like office of management and council of economic advisors and the policy development offices like the National Security Council. Further, the president selects individual cabinet members who lead the cabinet departments and other non-cabinet-level agencies. All these are mandated to interpret and implement laws passed by congress. All these departments act as advisors, formulating policies, and identifying issues for presidential consideration. In theory, all these divisions of the executive branch function in furthering the goals set by the president.

The presidents

The presidents are the heads of the federal executive branch. As strong as this might sound, the founders of the country created three different government branches and limited the president's powers to ensure he does not influence the policy making process to suit his needs over the nation. However, the president is still powerful in a number of ways and his powers are limited in some ways (Rose, 2007).

Presidents have numerous roles in policymaking. In the context of the unofficial chief of the state, the president is viewed as the symbol of the country. As the official chief executive, he manages the executive and cabinet branches. The president is also the commander in chief of the armed forces, and thus he is at the official top rank of the military in the country. The constitution vests the president with additional powers, like appointing ambassadors and treaties with foreign countries. All these presidential powers are subject to the consent and advice of the Senate.

Agenda setting

A key tool that presidents can use to influence the policymaking is the ability to place issues on the national agenda and provide a recommended course of action. The presidency is all about framing agendas. The president can influence setting the national agenda through their role as the country leaders and the volume of attention given to presidential decisions, actions, and policy recommendations. Unlike interest groups and other politicians, presidents do not have to work hard to receive media coverage. Whether it is the release of the president's policy proposal, annual state address, a photo shoot, press conference, or release of a report, president's message is continually published. Additionally, the party leader, vice president or the cabinet officers can deliver the president's message (Hao, 2010).

The concept of going public involves appealing directly to the citizens to influence the legislative debates and focus on a certain issue. While doing this, presidents can use support from their country's citizens to obtain the attention of the Congress while swaying the votes of policy decisions. Since the Congress members are more concerned about pleasing their constituencies to gain another chance for re-election, the president seeks the support of the third party: the public, to coerce his politicians to accept his preferences.

It is often advantageous for the presidents to plea an item on the policy agenda in a minimal public manner. For instance, in case a policy is controversial with the public or if the president's party members disagree with his proposal, it can be more effective to promote a policy behind the scenes. The president can carefully let Congress members know the favored policies directly or via intermediaries. Using a combination of threats to members' interests and promises of favors, presidents can influence the outcomes of policy debates in Congress even with no need to go public (Mitchell, 2010).

Besides deciding whether to approach, Congress behind the scenes or publicly, presidents must choose whether to present a preferred policy with less or more detail. A president can present a policy more broadly using contemporary guidelines or principles, or through proposed legislation presented to Congress. All the methods that president uses to convey his goals have pros and cons. If the president presents a policy in a broad manner, Congress can interpret the policy in a manner that the president dislikes. However, if the president presents a specified draft or proposal to the Congress, members of the Congress can view the act as infringing their legislative role and resist working with him.

The success of presidents in nationalizing their policy issues and resolving them according to their preferences relies partly on the extent of the president's available political capital. Political capital refers to the strength of the presidential popularity and his party in Congress and various contexts. Congressional members are expected to support a popular president mobilizing support from the public and improving members' standing. Association with the president's party and the generation of money for their campaigns enhances this (Shull, 2012).

Even the most popular presidents are not always able to dictate issues that should be on the national agenda. However, decisions and events outside the president's control regularly influence what topics should concern the country. The anthrax scare, the subsequent September 11 terrorist attack, the U.S., and subway bombing in Madrid and London all served to put terrorism at the top of a political agenda and policy. Numerous food recalls and concern about avian flu epidemic put food safety and public health issues on the national agenda. However, all other issues have recently been dwarfed by concerns about high unemployment, the federal deficit, and a lagging economy. Therefore, even the most popular president must be responsive to international and national events, which might be beyond their control.

Running the government

One of the president's most vital influences is through directing the organization of government. The Constitution simply advises the president to ensure that the laws be steadfastly executed. Today, the federal bureaucracy incorporates 4.1 million regular people and military representatives and uses more than $2 trillion every year (Schraeder, 2008). One of the assets for regulating the organization is the presidential power to delegate top-level administrators. New presidents have something like 500 abnormal amount positions accessible for errand (bureau and subcabinet occupations, organizational heads, and other non-civil administration posts), in addition to 2,500 lesser employments. Lately, presidents have considered naming authorities who will be receptive to the president's strategies. Presidents likewise have the ability to propose organization plans to Congress -- the aftereffect of the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921 (Shull, 2009).

No government officials or political researchers have considered the bad habit presidency. When the decision of a group was an untimely idea; now it is regularly an exertion to assuage some essential typical voting public. Although the aggregation of presidential counsels reputed to be the bureau is not specified in the Constitution, each president has had one. Today, fourteen secretaries and the lawyer general head official branches and constitute the bureau. Furthermore, distinct presidents may designate different authorities, (for example, the minister to the United Nations) as cabinet members.

The President Executive Office (formed in 1939) is an approximately a gathering of work places and associations (Riley & Brophy-Baermann, 2006). A percentage of the workplaces are made by enactment, while the president arranges others. The Executive Office incorporates three real policymaking forms the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget-in addition to numerous different units serving the president. The White House staff incorporates the key associates the president sees day by day the head of staff, congressional contact individuals, press secretary, National Security Council, and various managerial political colleagues. Presidents depend intensely on their staffs for data, strategy choices, and investigation. Every president forms the White House to serve his political and strategic needs, and his decision-making style (Gerhardt, 2013).

In spite of overwhelming dependence on staff, the president sets the tone for the White House. They all arrange the White House to serve their own particular political and approach needs and their choice making style. The First Lady has no official government position, yet she is regularly at the middle of national consideration.

The Politics of Shared Powers

The president is a significant influence of the congressional agenda, and the chief legislator is regularly used to accentuate the official's importance in the legislative methodology. Presidents' most functional assets in passing their legislation are their party leadership, their legislative skills, and public support.

The Constitution additionally gives the president power to veto congressional enactment. Assuming that Congress dismisses inside ten days in the wake of submitting a charge, the president can essentially give it a chance to die by not marking or vetoing it. This process is known as a pocket veto. The presidential veto is normally viable; just something like Congress has overridden four percent of all vetoed bills since the country's establishing. Subsequently, even the risk of a presidential veto could be a viable device for convincing Congress to give more weight to the president's perspectives (Shull, 2012).

Party administration in Congress is each president's important undertaking when countering the common propensities to clash between the official and administrative limbs. The essential impediment to gathering solidarity is the absence of accord around gathering parts on approaches, particularly in the Democratic gathering. This assorted quality of perspectives frequently reflects the differing qualities of supporters.

Although the gathering pioneers in Congress are inclined to uphold presidential arrangements and normally work nearly with the White House, they are allowed to contradict the president or to give just typical backing. Party guides are not in a position to compensate or teach parts of Congress on the groundwork of presidential backing. The gatherings are quite decentralized, and national gathering pioneers do not control selections and decisions.

Restricted for the president to enhance the shots of acquiring back in Congress is to expand the amount of individual gathering parts in the lawmaking body. The sensation of presidential coattails happens when voters throw their tickets for congressional hopefuls of the president's gathering since those applicants underpin the president. Latest studies show a reducing association between presidential and congressional voting, on the other hand, and not many races are dead set by presidential coattails. Presidents with great support from the society invest a little time and effort when influencing the Congress. Parts of Congress nearly watch two markers of open uphold for the president-endorsement in the surveys and orders in presidential races (Morris, 2012).

Open approbation is the political asset that can transform a circumstance of stalemate between the president and Congress into a steady president's administrative suggestions. Any comprehensive help gives the president room and debilitates imperviousness to presidential arrangements. However, the absence of backing reinforces the purpose of the aforementioned slanted to contradict the president and strait the extent in which the strategies suit the best possible assumption.

An electing command the recognition that the voters positively uphold the president's character and approaches could be an influential image in American legislative issues. It concurs added genuineness and tenability to the recently chose president's suggestions. Simply winning a race does not give presidents a command. It is normal after close races to hear guarantees particularly from the other party-that there was "no order." Even substantial discretionary triumphs convey no insurance that Congress will translate the effects as commands, particularly if the voters additionally choose larger parts in Congress from the other party (Gerhardt, 2013).

Conclusion

The journey through the policy making process in the U.S. provides an understanding of how presidents can influence the process to suit their needs. This paper has walked through the specific tools and strategies used by presidents to influence the policy making process. It provides an understanding of the influence of presidents. Presidents have and use a number of various opportunities to influence the policy making process to suit their needs. Therefore, their powers and concerns ought to be accounted for in analyzing policy issues.

Presidents influence the administrative plan more than any viable political figure. Regardless of what a president's aptitudes are, the "boss administrator" can infrequently practice complete control over the office. Presidents are seldom in a position to individual decisions unless when using open approaches. They might utilize their abilities to adventure good political conditions to achieve policy and strategy change. Largely, presidential authoritative skills should contend with other, more stable components that influence voting in Congress. Such components include party, philosophy, individual perspectives, and responsibilities on specified approaches, and supporters' interests.