Presidential Studies Quarterly最新文献

{"title":"Analyzing arguments in executive veto messages","authors":"Joshua Koss, Ian Ostrander, J. Sievert","doi":"10.1111/psq.12871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12871","url":null,"abstract":"The executive veto is one of the most important instruments of presidential power within the legislative arena. Because of constitutional requirements, every regular veto and many pocket vetoes are accompanied by a short letter to Congress from the president describing—often in detail—the reasoning behind the decision to veto. As such, these messages form a unique window into interbranch and partisan conflict over time. While analyses have been conducted on the broad patterns of veto use, questions remain concerning presidential motivations for vetoing as well as how these motivations have evolved over time along with changing political institutions. Using a data set of approximately 2000 unique veto messages from the first in 1792 to the last of President Trump's vetoes in 2021, we examine the content of veto messages to uncover the number and kind of arguments used by presidents when addressing Congress over vetoed legislation. Our analysis uncovers significant variation, with the evolution of arguments within veto messages mirroring broader political trends.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140432411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The tone of the president's immigration rhetoric","authors":"Matthew Eshbaugh‐Soha, Stephanie Wise","doi":"10.1111/psq.12868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12868","url":null,"abstract":"We examine the tone of the president's immigration policy speeches as a function of the political context, policy characteristics, and individual presidents in two ways. First, we describe the tone of the president's immigration rhetoric using DICTION software and its five global categories of tone. Second, we hypothesize that commonality and optimism, two categories of tone expressive of immigration policy, will co‐vary by political context, policy characteristics of immigration, and a president's approach to rhetoric. To test our expectations, we collected presidential mentions of immigration since 1953 from the Public Papers of the Presidents. Key variables, like the president's honeymoon and the post‐9/11 era, increase a president's commonality tone, and the president's approval ratings encourage greater optimism. Individual presidents also shape presidential rhetoric, indicating the importance of presidential style to immigration tone, especially for optimism. We conclude with implications of our work for the systematic study of presidential tone and the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139614190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The president and the vice president: Different types of partnerships for a unique power couple","authors":"Karine Prémont","doi":"10.1111/psq.12867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12867","url":null,"abstract":"As the vice presidency evolves over time, the way we assess vice presidents' activities and influence also needs to change. We must consider the type of partnership that the president and the vice president develop together, which determines not only the latter's involvement in the decision‐making process but also the scope of his or her influence. Since partnerships can change from one term to another and according to the issues, they can help explain the fluctuations of vice presidents' influence within and between administrations, but they also enhance our comprehension of the evolution of executive power by emphasizing the dynamics of the connection between its principal components—the presidency and the vice presidency. This article introduces a new typology accounting for four different partnerships: communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. This typology distinguishes between weak and strong partnerships, depending on the level of influence they allow the vice presidents to exert. Partnerships are defined by a series of criteria related to the selection of the running mate, the tasks of the vice president within the administration, and the quality of his or her relationship with the president.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139526914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Presidential candidates nobody wants?","authors":"Zoltán Fazekas, Peter K. Hatemi","doi":"10.1111/psq.12866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12866","url":null,"abstract":"In a nationally representative study, we explore the public's views of the 2016 presidential nominees. Current measures generally focus on approval of given candidates with closed‐ended questions, but much can be learned by soliciting the public's unconstrained candidate preferences—not only in the direction of how they feel, but the depth of their views and who they really want to see in office. Employing open‐ended questions, we find that more than 75% of the voting public preferred an option other than what was offered. Even when constraining choices to politicians, the Democratic and Republican nominees were not preferred by the majority of the public, and this held true when restricting the analyses to partisans only. We further asked voters to express, in their own words, what they thought of the two candidates for president. The majority of the public described both candidates in negative terms. They spoke with deep disdain for the opposition's candidate, as well as their own party's candidate. The results add support to the view that US primary elections are failing to produce candidates who represent the public's interests and signal the potential for further instability in US government.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138606627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What causes threats directed at the president?","authors":"Lucas J. Lothamer, Brandon Rottinghaus","doi":"10.1111/psq.12865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12865","url":null,"abstract":"What puts the president in the crosshairs of threats? By examining a new data set of threats made against the president in the incoming White House mail from 1961 to 1965, this study argues that domestic and international events, especially politically controversial issues, serve as a provocation for political threats. We find that outside civil rights events more than approval or economic conditions drive threats to the White House. Although limited in time span, the implications of this study suggest that specific events, some of which the White House has little control over, spur increased threats made against the president.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139198464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The administrative politics of unilateral action: Measuring delegation and discretion in the executive branch","authors":"Annie Benn","doi":"10.1111/psq.12862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12862","url":null,"abstract":"Political scientists typically view unilateral action as the president “going it alone” in opposition to Congress. However, there is increasing recognition that, while such action may be unilateral with respect to Congress, its implementation relies on the cooperation of administrative agencies. In this article, unilateral action is considered an act of administrative delegation: in issuing a unilateral directive, a president is both authorizing an agency to act and indicating a discretionary window for such action. The article introduces the Administrative Delegation Dataset, which provides delegation and discretion scores for 1,641 presidential unilateral directives issued between 1936 and 2021. The scores are based on novel measures developed for the executive‐branch context, and the reliability and validity of the measures are discussed. I then use the dataset to show that the extent of delegation and discretion granted to administrative agents has shifted across modalities (executive orders, memoranda, proclamations) over time: the proportion of high‐scoring executive orders has been increasing, but that increase is offset by a corresponding decrease in high‐scoring memos. Additionally, I find that presidents use less administrative delegation in foreign policy than in domestic policy, which is consistent with existing literature on centralization of executive‐branch policymaking.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139217369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Presidential hawkishness, domestic popularity, and diplomatic normalization","authors":"James D. Kim","doi":"10.1111/psq.12863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12863","url":null,"abstract":"When does the United States normalize its diplomatic relations with its adversaries? This article introduces a theory of diplomatic normalization, focusing on the interaction between the hawkishness of presidents and their domestic popularity. I argue that dovish presidents are more likely to pursue normalization when their domestic approval ratings plummet, as this makes them shift their priorities toward policies they find themselves more comfortable and confident handling. Doves are less likely to pursue normalization when they enjoy high popularity, so as not to jeopardize favorable public support. In contrast, hawkish presidents typically do not support normalization, regardless of their domestic standing, as it does not align with their top policy priorities. The exception arises in the rare instance of a president with an exceptionally high degree of hawkishness who is able to pursue reconciliation without losing his support. I test my theoretical expectations using data on U.S. presidents' latent hawkishness and their diplomatic normalization decisions from 1950 to 2005. The empirical evidence supports all hypotheses, underscoring the importance of understanding the interaction between a leader's personal attributes and the domestic political climate when studying foreign policy decisions.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139275652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Partisanship, Trump favorability, and changes in support for trade","authors":"Ceren Keser, James C. Garand, Ping Xu, Joseph Essig","doi":"10.1111/psq.12861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12861","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why has the relationship between partisan identification and Americans' trade attitudes shifted in recent years? We suggest that recent shifts in trade attitudes among partisans are driven by Donald Trump, who staked out a position on trade that is at odds with the position on trade traditionally held by Republicans. Using panel data from the Voter Study Group (VSG) surveys from 2011, 2016, and 2017, we conduct cross‐sectional analyses showing that the relationship between partisanship and trade attitudes has shifted dramatically from 2011 to 2016/2017; in 2011, Republicans were significantly more supportive of expanded trade, but by 2016/2017 the relationship had reversed, with Democrats significantly more supportive of trade. We link changes over time in trade attitudes with how Americans evaluate Trump: individuals with favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump are significantly more likely to shift their attitudes in an antitrade direction from 2011 to 2016. Because so many more Republicans have favorable attitudes toward Trump, the aggregate effect of Trump favorability is to shift Republicans as a group to be less favorable toward trade than Democrats. We suggest that Donald Trump has had a transformative effect on Americans' trade attitudes, with previous supporters (opponents) of expanded trade now expressing opposing (supporting) attitudes.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135315465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gender and moral language on the presidential campaign trail","authors":"David P. Redlawsk, Jiwon Nam, Annemarie S. Walter","doi":"10.1111/psq.12856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12856","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political candidates choose to highlight morality in their campaign speeches in various ways. In particular, we expect presidential candidates to highlight moral principles in introducing themselves to voters early in the campaign. However, usage may not be the same across candidates. Existing research suggests that, in general, women focus on different moral values than men. The question is whether such findings in the mass public translate into rhetorical differences between men and women presidential candidates. We know little about whether such gender differences exist, and if so, how they might influence voters. We examine a unique data set of presidential candidate speeches given in Iowa in the 2016 and 2020 nomination campaigns, developing and testing hypotheses about gender, the use of moral language, and its effects on vote outcomes. Using automated text analysis, we find that all else equal, while women candidates do not use more moral language overall, they do emphasize care and fairness more than men, and in doing so, they may be disadvantaging themselves, especially when using language related to fairness.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135462346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lincoln and Native Americans By Michael S.Green, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 2021. pp. 176","authors":"Holly M. Guise","doi":"10.1111/psq.12858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12858","url":null,"abstract":"A historian of the 19th-century United States and the Civil War, Michael S. Green continues his scholarship on the American West with a focus on the relationship between President Abraham Lincoln and Native Americans. In a relatively short book, Green elucidates Lincoln's personal background, his politics, and his actions toward Native people in the United States during the Civil War. What Green has produced is a complicated narrative of Lincoln, a historical actor with power as president amidst a war, who attempted to maintain imperfection while acting foremost as a political figure in the nation. This book focuses on Lincoln and his policies toward Native people. Although Green includes some quotes from tribal leaders, he does not devote much attention to Native voices and scholarship in Native studies. Thus, Green's work makes a solid contribution in the historical field but leaves room for it to develop. Structurally, the book is comprised of six chapters in addition to the introduction and conclusion. The chapters are organized chronologically and thematically. The introduction situates this book broadly in the fields of Civil War history, political history, and presidential history. It begins with Lincoln's order of the largest mass execution in US history of 38 Dakota men in 1862. Green compares Lincoln's policies to that of President Andrew Jackson's Indian removal. Chapter 1 identifies the racial project of presuming Native peoples to be “savages” and how this led to failed attempts to convert Indigenous people to Christianity. This chapter also explores Lincoln's family backstory in moving to Illinois, and it identifies books that may have influenced Lincoln's perspective on Black enslavement in the Americas and on Native people. Chapter 2 examines the narrative of the Black Hawk War (1832) as Anglo-Americans seizing Native lands through treaties and removal. Green notes that “new treaties took more Native land, and in a harbinger of the next major removal, relocating Black Hawk's band to modern-day Iowa and Kansas cost more lives than the war did” (p. 17). He identifies Lincoln's relationship to politics and the West envisioned as a space of free laborers where Native Americans lived and where their removal by the government opened white homesteading and railroads. Chapter 3 grapples with Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans and federal Indian policy, including meetings with 12 tribal chiefs. Chapter 4 highlights differences between Lincoln's and Jefferson Davis's approach to Indian territory. Chapter 5 describes the hanging of 38 Dakota men as “America's largest execution ever” (p. 69), while, at the same time, the arguments in the chapter depict Lincoln as navigating a calculus of political decisions, including the rejection of 264 death sentences. Chapter 6 addresses the Sand Creek Massacre (1864) and the Diné (Navajo) Long Walk (1863−1864), and summarizes Lincoln's attitude in not condoning these actions, even if not leading to ","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136014702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}