Against and Alongside the Bully Pulpit: How Legislators React to Public Appeals

• In Event: The Bully Pulpit: Presidential Communication in an Uncertain Landscape

Abstract

The preponderance of public appeals literature focuses on the dyadic interaction between political elites—most commonly a president—and their constituents. Meanwhile, the exchange of messages between political elites—say, presidents and legislators—receive considerably less attention. This paper investigates how members of Congress intermittently buoy and block presidential efforts to rally public support for policy initiatives. Drawing upon a rich collection of legislators' press releases, this paper evaluates how partisan, ideological, and electoral considerations figure into each legislator’s propensity to offer support, opposition, or say nothing at all in the aftermath of a presidential appeal. Analyses of all press releases from the 111th and 115th sessions of Congress suggest that moderates and those who are cross-pressured by parties and constituents are notably less likely to respond to presidential speeches; and when they do respond, they tend to remain neutral. Ideologically extreme legislators, by contrast, respond with greater frequency and deliver statements of clear support or opposition. Additional analyses of members’ responses to presidential state of the union addresses reveal a marked increase in opposition by the minority party. Republican opposition to Barack Obama, a variety of structural topic models reveal, pales in comparison to Democratic opposition to Trump. Collectively, these findings have important implications for our understanding of public debates about the president’s policy agenda and party polarization within Congress.

Author

• Shu Fu, University of Chicago