Cohen (1995) Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda

Cohen (2005) “Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda”

How much influence does presidential rhetoric have over the public’s agenda? Cohen (1995) expects to find that the more attention the president gives to a policy area in his State of the Union Address, the more concerned the public will be about that area. Cohen finds that “mere presidential mentions of a policy area seems to elicit a public response, thus presidents do not have to resort to substantive arguments to sway public opinion. (another CON!!).

Behr & Iyengar (1985) find that the president does indeed have influence on the public via speeches; when they devote time to a topic, the public responds.

The literature is split; one camp looks at the ability of the president to manipulate their popularity ratings through political drama, like making speeches. MacKuen (1983) fnds this to be a way for presidents to boost approval, but the effects are short-lived.

Others find that presidents may only successfully lead public opinion when they are popular.

Why is agenda control so important? “By controlling the agenda, the president may secure success with Congress. He may be able to keep issues that he dislikes from the agenda, while advancing those that he favors. He can use the agenda settting power strategically, promoting issues that Congress is likely to pass, demoting those that are controversial. Such strategic behavior may foster the appearance of being a winner, and research suggests that winning in Congress boosts presidential popularity, which may feedback into legislative success. Manipulating the agenda for political advantage may help presidential efforts with Congress” (Cohen 1995, 88).

The public is more receptive to the president (Cohen 1995). They demand and expect leadership from the Office, and is even psychologically relient on the president (Greenstein 1974). “The president stands about all others in the political aren, with the greater public prestige, attention and responsibility, in effect “monopolizing the public space” (Miroff 1982)” (11). This suggests a symbolic appeal. Given this, the president has resources to get public support for his agenda.

But when policy areas are less recognizes/understood, does the president resort to substantive emphasis and argumentation? In other words, the president takes a position, instead of just mentioning the policy area such as “foreign policy.” Cohen (1995) finds that when the president takes a position on the policy, the effects are the same as when the president merely mentions the policy area. “The public seems to respond directly to anything that the president says” (99). “The president does not have to convince the public that a policy problem is important by offering substantive positives. Merely mentioning a problem to the pubic heightens public convcen with the policy problem” (102).

But it is fleeting; only FP policy area is restructured, long-term.

The president is an agenda gate keeper (Cohen 1995, 99):
“Presidential attention focuses the public n those areas, while distracting the public from other problems. Thus, the president acts as an agenda gate keeper, where his impact n the public’s agenda filters concerns onto or away from the public’s agenda” (99).