Presidential Appeals Research Articles

Does President Trump's Outrageous Behavior Work?: Results from Two Randomized‐Controlled Trials

AbstractPoliticians are increasingly relying on outrage to engage the public. President Donald Trump used outrage to fuel his unlikely 2016 presidential victory and 2020 reelection effort. Was Trump's outrageous behavior a boon to his political fortunes or political malpractice? I draw on research in political psychology, populism, and presidential appeals to examine President Trump's outrageous behavior and its effect on the public. Using a series of original experiments, I find support for my expectation that Trump's outrageous behavior is a politically advantageous public relations strategy. My results show that Trump's outrageous behavior increases his support among self‐identified Independents. However, contrary to popular conception, the results do not support claims that racial resentment or affinity for populism makes individuals more amenable to Trump's outrageous behavior.

One America? Presidential Appeals to Racial Resentment from LBJ to Trump. By NathanAngelo. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2019. 304 pp.

One America? Presidential Appeals to Racial Resentment from LBJ to Trump. By NathanAngelo. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2019. 304 pp.

The Effects of Tearful Presidential Appeals on Public Anger Relief and Government Reputation

This study examines the ways in which nonverbal communication appeals by heads of state during serious situations of national crisis affect the public’s anger levels and appraisal of the government organization. The experiment used a 2 × 2 design with two forms of crisis (those associated with high and low levels of government responsibility) and two forms of appeal or apology, namely “tearful” and “ordinary.” Anger levels were found to be significantly lower following a political leader’s apology in both tearful and ordinary forms following a crisis for which the government responsibility was perceived as high. In cases of crises for which government responsibility was seen as low, anger levels did decrease, though not significantly. Comparison of the effects of tearful and ordinary appeals showed the former to have a stronger anger relief effect than the latter in both high and low responsibility conditions, although not to a statistically significant degree. No particular difference was observed between the two appeal times in terms of government reputation. Theoretical and managerial implications as well as directions for future research are discussed.

Presidential Appeals to Moral Foundations: How Modern Presidents Persuade Cross‐Ideologues

Many assume that modern presidents cannot persuade cross‐ideologues to support their policy proposals. The idea that a conservative would support a liberal policy advocated by a cross‐partisan president seems ludicrous. However, recent research suggests that conservatives will support liberal policies that are framed consistent with moral foundations. Using a national survey experiment that carefully manipulates the actual text of a speech given by President Obama, this article demonstrates that fairness frames in presidential speeches motivate liberal policy support among conservative, moderate, and liberal Americans who value fairness.

The Effect of Tearful Presidential Appeals on the Leader's Credibility and Government Reputation in the National Crisis

The Effect of Tearful Presidential Appeals on the Leader's Credibility and Government Reputation in the National Crisis

Agenda Setting from the Oval Office: An Experimental Examination of Presidential Influence over the Public Agenda

Agenda Setting from the Oval Office: An Experimental Examination of Presidential Influence over the Public Agenda

Going Public as a Legislative Weapon: Measuring Presidential Appeals Regarding Specific Legislation

This article examines the public appeals of three modern presidents (Carter, Reagan, and the first Bush) concerning 253 significant pieces of legislation. It shows that these occupants of the Oval Office took their case to the American people only a few times regarding most of the bills examined. This finding holds across a number of measures of presidential appeals, including general appeals, calls for public and congressional action, television and radio appeals, and appeals made outside of Washington, DC. The presidents analyzed were more likely to speak in support of rather than in opposition to legislation, however. They also went public repeatedly regarding a handful of proposals, particularly their own initiatives.

Public Presidential Appeals and Congressional Floor Votes: Reassessing the Constitutional Threat

The assertion that public appeals by presidents can create electoral threats to noncompliant members of Congress is central to arguments about the value of "going public" as a legislative strategy. Although recent scholarship suggests a link between popular presidential rhetoric and the likelihood of bill passage, researchers have yet to examine the impact of public presidential appeals on individual legislators. This study examines the logic of electoral threats imposed by going public. We test whether a president's going public with increased intensity leads individual members of Congress to increase their support for presidential preferences on congressional floor votes. We employ several measures to assess the intensity of presidents' public appeals, including domestic speeches, nationally televised addresses, and speeches in legislators' home states. Several logistic regression models are tested to determine whether congressional support for presidential preferences on the floor is influenced by the interaction between members' electoral vulnerability and presidents' use of popular appeals. The findings suggest that presidential speechmaking has very little impact on the likelihood that members of Congress will support the president's position on roll call votes. We argue that this suggests a necessary revision of criticisms of the "rhetorical presidency." Public presidential appeals do not seem to present a considerable threat to a constitutional order that is predicated on congressional autonomy and deliberation.

College Presidents: Voices of Civic Virtue and the Common Good of Democracy

Executive Summary America's colleges and universities have contributed significantly to civic virtue and the common good of democracy. College presidents undergird this heritage by affirming the relationship of education to fundamental civic virtues and values of democracy. Contemporary presidents and their actions navigating controversies and issues are exemplary of this continuing commitment today despite the challenges of increasing pluralism and diversity. The argument presented is that presidents can and should use the values of the academy to express their voice to respond to these situations and to recreate a civil religion capable of maintaining the civic virtue and common good of democracy. ********** The history of the relationship between higher education and democracy in America is a long one, traceable to the founding of colonial colleges and of the Republic. Despite their enormous variety, America's colleges and universities, both private and public, have from colonial times enjoyed close ties and contributed significantly to civic virtue and the common good essentially embedded in democratic society and the nation. As the leaders of the academy, college presidents have with remarkable consistency affirmed the important relationship of a college education to fundamental civic virtues and values, and the civil demands and responsibilities of democracy. Presidential appeals and actions have underscored the engagement of colleges and their students in upholding the critical social and civic virtues engrained in American society and fundamental to the formation of democracy. At times this has required firm criticism and disagreement with national and state policies, yet still underscoring the high ideals of a deeper democratic spirit. For example, in 1970, John Kemeny, President of Dartmouth College, responding to protests of the Vietnam War and the killings of two students at Kent State argued before his campus community that the nation was facing nothing less than a constitutional crisis. He proceeded to liken the circumstances facing the College--his decision to suspend the remainder of the term in order for students and faculty to examine the issues of provoking that crisis--to those of the Revolutionary War. (1) But whether as critic or servant, presidents have educated and challenged both college communities and the public about civic duty and about the values critical to democracy. Presidents regularly exert leadership directing the attention of their communities to civic life beyond the gates of the academy. The civic duty of the educated is rooted in expectations about the contributions students should be led to make to society, to the nation, and to the world. It is in this realm of the values and spirit of democracy that presidents make the case for the crucial connection between the ivory tower and the world outside the gates. As they do so, presidents tend to stress two major themes--the importance of education to democracy and to the development of the civic virtues--both of which are crucially linked to the aforementioned fundamental principles of the American nation. (2) The rhetoric and actions of college and university presidents about civic virtue and democratic principles are also substantially shaped by three concomitant elements. Presidential philosophy about the relationship of the academy to democracy nearly universally reflects these political and educational assumptions. First is that the democratic heritage of the nation is imbued with fundamental moral, religious, and spiritual beliefs. Second is the notion that America's colleges have an incumbent duty to nurture the principles underlying civic virtue and democratic values, and that the students' education should inspire the upholding of those values. Lastly is the Jeffersonian tradition that educated citizens are crucial to maintaining democracy. Public education is federally established and funded because a literate citizenry is essential to the health of democracy. …

The President's Legislative Influence from Public Appeals

Despite scholars' long-standing appreciation of modern American presidents' plebiscitary powers, no study offers evidence that public appeals systematically facilitate influence, and some research indicates they can actually decrease presidential bargaining power. Our analysis resolves this disparity, developing a theoretical perspective of plebiscitary appeals and testing it on data from the nationally televised addresses of Presidents Eisenhower through Clinton. perspective suggests that appeals should generate influence, but that this influence depends on presidents strategically choosing issues to promote to the public. In particular, a president will promote issues on which his position is popular, but for which Congress would not otherwise enact his preferred policy. To test this perspective, analyze a simultaneous-equations model of the causes and policy consequences of presidential appeals over budgetary policy. results support the hypotheses, establishing the effectiveness of public strategies and conditions to which this effectiveness is limited. n July 27, 1981, less than forty-eight hours before the House was scheduled to vote on President Reagan's proposed income tax reduction of over 25 percent, the president promoted his proposal in a nationally televised address. Speaker of the House Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill, Jr. surmised that prior to the address, we [the Democrats] had this won.' Yet following Reagan's speech, a number of Democrats switched positions, opting to vote with the president. Why did these members abandon their party? As described by an aide to Representative Beverly Byron, one of the Democrats that switched positions, Byron's office was inundated with calls in support of Reagan's proposal the morning after his speech. Offices across the Hill gave similar reports.2 In the end, the tax cut won by a vote of 238 to 195. Fifteen years later, with the partisanship of the presidency and House reversed (the Senate was again Republican), President Clinton promoted his budget proposals to the public following a breakdown in negotiations with Congress. Ultimately, these efforts helped enable Clinton to achieve his policy goals. As recounted by a Chief Clerk of the House Appropriations Committee, The Republicans pushed their agenda too far, and Clinton was able to capitalize on the situation with the public ... the next