The Contemporary Presidency: Polarization and White House/Legislative Relations: Causes and Consequences of Elite-Level Conflict

Abstract

Partisan polarization is like the cell phone of American politics--ubiquitous, occasionally annoying, and often the cause of public policy pileups when distracted lawmakers swerve into oncoming legislative traffic. Like the omnipresent technological device, partisanship is now one of the most dominant features of contemporary American politics. Trends and questions about Republican and Democratic voters sorting themselves into cohesive ideological camps is a popular and widely researched theme among political scientists (Abramowitz, Alexander, and Gunning 2005; Fiorina with Abrams and Pope 2005). Polarization Congress is a hot research topic among legislative scholars as well (Aldrich 1995; Bond and Fleisher 2000). Whether it is party in the or party in the Congress, partisanship now significantly affects voters, elections, and the lawmaking process a dramatic manner (Jacobson 2002). Experts might debate whether political parties offer policy alternatives, but there is little doubt they are responsible for much of the polarization today's public policy environment. How times have changed from the days when the American Political Science Association formed a task force (Committee on Political Parties 1950) promoting clearer distinctions and clarity between the Or, from 1968, when George Wallace said, There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Dee and Tweedle Dumb similarities appear quaint compared to the choices offered, for example, the last presidential campaign between President Bush and Senator Kerry, or, perhaps even more strikingly, to the daily verbal arrows today's congressional leaders sling at each other. Yet despite extensive research and writing by academics and pundits about the impact of partisan polarization on Congress and the electorate, there is less known about how it affects the contemporary presidency (see Fleisher and Bond 1996; Sinclair 2000 for some notable exceptions). Specifically, how does growing polarization influence White House relations with the Congress and what way? This article explores the contours of polarization on Capitol Hill, how the White House navigates these shoals, and the impact of partisanship on the president's legislative strategies, tactics, and behavior. I argue polarization impacts the White House's relations with Congress a variety of ways, creating a unique set of challenges promoting an agenda and keeping cordial relations with lawmakers. I also posit that unified government may represent the political equivalent of polarization on steroids--amplifying already increasing trends toward partisanship. Finally, I ask whether increased conflict between Democratic congressional leaders and the White House is both a consequence of voter polarization and a cause of it. Partisan Polarization, Promoting an Agenda, and Fostering Relations with Lawmakers The combination of hotter partisan rhetoric from congressional leaders and a more polarized electorate had several implications for White House relations with lawmakers that came to a head the White House of George W. Bush 2001. The next section of the article outlines the consequences of blending unified government and political polarization on White House legislative relations over the past five years based on a series of interviews conducted with former White House staff serving Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Presidential meetings with lawmakers take many forms. Congressional leadership meetings at the White House with the president's party only, as well as bipartisan groups, are common. So are meetings between the president's emissaries and lawmakers on the Hill. But the frequency, tone, and participants vary a great deal depending on factors such as divided versus unified government and the willingness of either the president or his opponents Congress to engage dialogue and cooperation. …