PRG RePoRtNewsletter of the Presidency Research Group of the American Political Science Association

InsIde ThIs Issue

General InformatIon.........................2 awards............................................. .3 announcements.................................7 the PolItIcal authorIty Problem and

the PresIdentIal Power traP

steven e. schIer...........................9 PresIdentIal ProclamatIons database: PresIdentIal ProclamatIons Project at

the unIversIty of houston

jeremy d. baIley and brandon rottInGhaus......................................12 book scan.........................................15 journal scan....................................16

From The secTIon PresIdenT

Members of PRG:

David Crockett’s term as editor of the PRG Report is coming to an end. I think we all owe David a word of thanks for the wonderful job he has done editing our newsletter.

The newsletter has served an important function for PRG, with its announcements, features, and bibliography. Plus, it is one of the few benefits that are open only to members of PRG. Thus, it’s important to keep the PRG Report alive.

But to do so requires an editor and as yet, despite our efforts at re-cruiting, we have not found anyone willing to serve. Therefore, I am asking for volunteers and/or nominations to edit the newsletter for Fall 2010-Spring 2012, the standard two-year term.

If you have questions regarding the newsletter editor duties, please for-ward them to me. I am sure that David will be willing to answer these questions too.

Thanks,

Jeff Cohen President, Presidency Research Group

*********************************************************

From The edITor

For those who may be interested in serving as editor of the PRG Report, I want to encourage you to contact me (see the contact information on page 2) with any questions you have about the job. Contrary to my fears, it has not been an onerous burden, thanks in large part to the firm foundation established by previous editors. I do think, however, that the position would be filled best by someone who has some institutional support (in the form of reliable and competent student workers, teach-ing assistants, or research assistants), and who is comfortable working in the world of desktop publishing programs. Most of what I have done is cut-and-paste with previous editions. Someone who actually knows what he or she is doing could, I think, make this a much more dynamic publication, given the technology that is available today.

Again, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about the position. Think of it as service to your profession......

Volume XXXII, Number 1 Fall 2009

Visit PRG Report Online athttp://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/

PRG/index.asp

Fall 2009 2

PRG OfficeRs

PresidentJeffrey E. Cohen

Fordham UniversityDepartment of Political Science

441 East Fordham RoadBronx NY 10458

cohen@fordham.edu

Vice President & President ElectMary Stuckey

Department of CommunicationGeorgia State University

Box 4000Atlanta, GA 30302-4000joumes@langate.gsu.edu

Secretary/TreasurerStephen Weatherford

University of California, Santa Barbara

Department of Political ScienceMail Code 9420

Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9420weatherford@polsci.ucsb.edu

2010 Program ChairRichard Conley

University of FloridaDepartment of Political Science

309 Anderson Hall Gainesville FL 32611

rconley@ufl.edu

Past PresidentCharles E. Walcott

Virginia Polytechnic InstituteDepartment of Political Science528 Major Williams Hall - 0130

Blacksburg VA 24061 cwalcott@vt.edu

BOaRd Of diRectORs:Randall Adkins (2008-2011), University of Nebraska, Omaha, radkins@unomaha.edu

Meena Bose (2009-2012), Hofstra University, meenekshi.bose@hofstra.eduLara Brown (2008-2011), Villanova University, lara.brown@villanova.edu

Lilly Goren (2007-2010), Carroll College, lgoren@carrollu.eduChristopher Kelley (2009-2011), Miami University of Ohio, kelleycs@muohio.edu

David Lewis (2009-2012), Vanderbilt University, david.e.lewis@vanderbilt.eduJanet Martin (2009-2012), Bowdoin College, jmartin@bowdoin.edu

Ken Mayer (2007-2010), University of Wisconsin at Madison, kmayer@polisci.wisc.eduKevin McMahon (2007-2010), Trinity College, kevin.mcmahon.1@trincoll.eduJeffrey Peake (2007-2010), Bowling Green State University, jpeake@bgsu.edu

Steven Schier (2008-2011), Carleton College, sschier@carleton.eduWayne Steger (2008-2011), DePaul University, wsteger@depaul.edu

Justin Vaughn (2008-2011), Cleveland State University, j.s.vaughn@csuohio.eduJose Villalobos (graduate student, 2008-2011), Texas A&M University; 2009- UT El Paso,

jdvillalobos2@utep.edu Shirley Anne Warshaw (2007-2010), Gettysburg College, swarshaw@gettysburg.edu

David Yalof (2009-2012), University of Connecticut, david.yalof@uconn.eduDavid Crockett (Ex Officio), Trinity University, dcrocket@trinity.edu

Martha Joynt Kumar (Ex Officio), Towson University, joyntkumar@aol.com

PRG RePoRt

The PRG RePoRt is published twice annually on behalf of the Presidency Research Section of the American Political Science Association.

The PRG RePoRt serves the scholarly community in presidential and executive politics. The editor of the Report welcomes your submissions and ideas.

Editor: David. A. Crockett

Department of Political ScienceTrinity UniversityOne Trinity Place

San Antonio, TX 78212Phone: (210) 999-8344Fax: (210) 999-8320dcrocket@trinity.edu

Fall 2009 3

awaRdsPrG sectIon awards

The Richard E. Neustadt Award is given for the best book published that contributed to research and scholarship in the field of the American presidency during the previous year.

2009 Richard E. Neustadt Award Recipient:David E. Lewis, Vanderbilt University Title: The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance (Princeton University Press)

Citation: In The Politics of Presidential Appointments, Professor Lewis offers an in-depth account of how and why presidents use political appointees, and how their choices impact directly upon government performance – for better or worse. Dr. Lewis pro-vides the most systematic account to date of this process, and the important tradeoffs between political control of government and bureaucratic effectiveness that occur when the president appoints executive branch officials. In setting up his framework for analy-sis, Dr. Lewis clearly and comprehensively describes the types of leadership positions at stake in the federal bureaucracy that may be filled by career or political appointees. His methodology is most impressive, as he draws on many different types of data -- historical analysis, case studies, elite interviewing and quantita-tive analysis – in support of his conclusion that political appoin-tees perform worse than career personnel. Thanks to Dr. Lewis’ trenchant and sophisticated analysis, we can better understand not only the FEMA debacle that took place after Hurricane Katrina, but similar problems that have occurred at the CIA, the Office of Special Counsel, the Department of Education, and several other government agencies.

Congratulations again to Dr. Lewis on this fine scholarly achieve-ment.

Nominations for the 2010 Neustadt Award can be sent to the award committee. Nominations should be submitted by February 1, 2010.

Paul Quirk, University of British Columbia, Chair quirk@politics.ubc.ca

Committee Members:William Howell, University of Chicago whowell@uchicago.edu Matthew Beckmann, University of California, Irvine beckmann@uci.edu Martha Joynt Kumar, Towson State University joyntkumar@aol.com Richard Waterman, University of Kentucky rwate2@email.uky.edu

RichaRd e. Neustadt awaRd

The Founders Award, named in honor of Lester Seligman, is given for the best paper presented by a graduate student at either the preceding year’s APSA annual meeting or at any of the re-gional meetings in 2008-2009.

2008-2009 Founders Award Recipient:Cari Lynn Hennessey, Northwestern University Title: “The Effect of Public Opinion on Policy Outcomes in Sequential Veto Bargaining”

Nominations for the 2009-2010 Founders Award, named in honor of Stephen Wayne, can be sent to the award committee.

B. Dan Wood, Texas A&M University, Chair bdanwood@polisci.tamu.edu

Committee Members:Brandice Canes-Wrone, Princeton University bcwrone@princeton.eduJulia Azari, Marquette University julia.azari@marquette.eduDaniel DiSalvo, City College of New York ddisalvo@ccny.cuny.eduBruce Nesmith, Coe College bnesmith@coe.edu

Nominations should be submitted by May 1, 2010.

The Founders Award (PhD.), named in honor of Francis Rourke, is given for the best paper presented by a PhD-holding scholar at the previous year’s APSA annual meeting.

2009 Founders Paper Award Recipient:Jeffrey E. Cohen, Fordham University Title: “The Congressional Roots of Presidential Approval”

Nominations for the 2010 Founders Paper Award, named in honor of James Young, can be sent to the award committee.

John Woolley, University of California, Santa Barbara, Chair woolley@polsci.ucsb.edu

Committee Members:George Edwards, Texas A&M University gedwards@polisci.tamu.edu Dan Galvin, Northwestern University galvin@northwestern.eduBrian Newman, Pepperdine University brian.newman@pepperdine.eduJames King, University of Wyoming jking@uwyo.edu

Nominations should be submitted by February 1, 2010.

fOuNdeRs awaRd (Phd.)

Fall 2009 4

fOuNdeRs awaRd

Best uNdeRGRaduate PaPeR awaRd

The Best Undergraduate Paper Award is given for the best undergraduate paper completed in the present academic year.

2008-2009 Best Undergraduate Paper Award Recipient:Adam Aliano, U.S. Naval Academy Title: “From the New Frontier to Change You Can Believe In: The Issues of Person and the Campaigns of 1960 and 2008”

Nominations for the 2009-2010 Best Undergraduate Paper Award can be sent to the award committee.

Lydia Andrade, University of the Incarnate Word, Chair andrade@uiwtx.edu

Committee Members:Shannon Bow, University of Texas at Austin shannonbow@hotmail.comKaren Hoffman, Marquette University karen.hoffman@marquette.eduJose Villalobos, University of Texas at El Paso jdvillalobos2@utep.eduDiane Heith, Saint Johns University heithd@stjohns.edu

Nominations should be submitted by May 1, 2010.

The George C. Edwards III Dissertation Award is given for the best dissertation in presidency research completed and accepted during the previous calendar year. The recipient receives a $200 award.

2009 George C. Edwards III Dissertation Award Recipient:Jose D. Villalobos, Texas A&M University Title: Presidential-Bureaucratic Management and Policy Making Success in Congress

Nominations for the 2010 award can be sent to the award committee.

Karen Hult, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Chair khult@vt.edu

Committee Members:Richard Powell, University of Maine rpowell@maine.eduBert Rockman, Purdue University barockma@purdue.eduRandy Adkins, University of Nebraska-Omaha adkins@mail.unomaha.eduChristopher Kelley, Miami University of Ohio kelleycs@muohio.edu

To be considered for the award, nominees must submit the following documents to each member of the award committee: (1) a hard copy of the dissertation, (2) a PDF of the dissertation on a CD, (3) a nominee form, and (4) a nominator form and

GeORGe c. edwaRds iii disseRtatiON awaRd

Fall 2009 5

Fall 2009 6

letter. Forms are available on the section’s web site. The award committee welcomes nominations by dissertation committee chairs or committee members.

Nominations should be submitted by February 1, 2010.

steve schieR PReseNts OutGOiNG PRG PResideNt chuck walcOtt with a Plaque

Fall 2009 7

aNNOuNcemeNts

Greenwood Press is seeking authors for the creation of a four-volume reference set entitled Chronology of the U.S. Presidency. The compilation would have 44 chapters (one chapter for each President). We are looking for authors to write one or more chap-ters for the project.

The length of each entry would depend on the president you would like to write about. Shorter entries (e.g. Martin Van Buren) would be 8,000 words or approximately 17 pages. Medium length entries (e.g. Herbert Hoover) would be 12,000 words or approxi-mately 22 pages. Long entries (e.g. FDR) would be 15,000 words or approximately 27 pages.

Stipends will be paid to authors based on the length of the en-try--$150 for short entries, $175 for medium entries, and $225 for long entries. Instead of cash payments, authors may opt for Greenwood/ABC-CLIO press book credit which is three times the amount of cash payments.

If you are interested in participating in this project, please send a vitae and letter identifying your first and second choice of presi-dent you would like to write about to:

Dr. Mathew ManwellerCentral Washington Universitymanwellerm@cwu.edu509-963-2396

If selected to author a chapter, an individual contract will be awarded with specific information regarding format, content, and accompanying material.

Authors will be given approximately 6-8 months to complete the requested work.

a call fOR authORs CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

“Rhetoric, Politics, and the Obama Phenomenon”Texas A&M University, March 4-7, 2010

Conference Co-Organizers Jennifer Mercieca (Texas A&M University) and Justin Vaughn (Cleveland State

University) invite you to attend the upcoming “Rhetoric, Politics, and the Obama Phenomenon” conference in

March. A program featuring more than four dozen schol-ars and pundits representing both humanities and social scientific perspectives will explore and analyze Barack Obama’s image politics, communication practices, and

rhetorical strategies. Scholars will present papers on such topics as the visual politics of Obama, Obama and leader-

ship, Obama and civil rights, Obama’s rhetorical style, and other topics relevant to the Obama phenomenon.

Among the notable participants are Vanessa Beasley (Vanderbilt University), George C. Edwards III (Texas A&M University), Matthew Esbaugh-Soha (University of North Texas), Cara Finnegan (University of Illinois), Martin Medhurst (Baylor University), John Murphy

(University of Illinois), Brandon Rottinghaus (University of Houston), Stephen Wayne (Georgetown University), Kirt Wilson (University of Minnesota), Susan Zaeske

(University of Wisconsin), and David Zarefsky (North-western University). Bonnie Dow (Vanderbilt University)

will give the keynote and annual Kurt Ritter Lecture, “Michelle Obama, the First Family, and the Postfeminist

Presidency.”

In addition to the academic program, tours of Texas A&M University’s George Bush Presidential Library

and Downtown Bryan’s Carnegie Library will be avail-able for conference attendees. The conference will be held

in Downtown Bryan during a First Friday “Art Walk” weekend, which means that art, music, and horse-drawn carriage rides will be available for our post-conference

enjoyment on Friday, March 5th. For more information about the program and the conference generally, please

visit www.comm.tamu.edu/phenomenonprogram.html or email one of the conference organizers, Jennifer Mercieca

(mercieca@tamu.edu) or Justin Vaughn (j.s.vaughn@csuohio.edu).

Fall 2009 8

The Johns Hopkins University Press has recently re-leased a new and updated version of The Presidency in the Con-stitutional Order, edited by Joseph M. Bessette and Jeffrey K. Tulis. The new volume, The Constitutional Presidency, contains an entirely new set of essays dealing with a wide range of topics. Below is the list of chapters and contributors.

Joseph M. Bessette and Jeffrey K. Tulis -- On the Constitution, Politics, and the Presidency

Joseph M. Bessette and Gary J. Schmitt -- The Powers and Duties of the President: Recovering the Logic and Meaning of Article II

Gary J. Schmitt -- President Washington’s Proclamation of Neu-trality

Lance Robinson -- Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft: The Constitutional Foundations of the Modern Presidency

David K. Nichols -- Constitutional Controversy and Presidential Election: Bush v. Gore

Richard M. Pious -- Military Tribunals, Prerogative Power, and the War on Terrorism

Kenneth R. Mayer -- Executive Orders

Jasmine Farrier -- Budget Power, Constitutional Conflicts, and the National Interest

David A. Crockett -- Executive Privilege

Jeffrey K. Tulis -- Impeachment in the Constitutional Order

James W. Ceaser -- Demagoguery, Statesmanship, and Presiden-tial Politics

New edition of Bessette/Tulis

the POlitical authORity PROBlem aNd the PResideNtial POweR tRaP Steven E. Schier

The presidency has witnessed two contrary and con-founding tendencies in recent years. One is the steady rise of formal and informal powers of the office within the American political system, a trend widely noted by scholars (for example, Tatalovich and Engeman 2003, Rudalevige 2006). The second is the inability of presidents to find consistent political support for their assertions of power due to changeable public opinion and institutional resistance in Washington. Though the first tendency is the more noted in scholarly circles, it is the second tendency that is the subject of this analysis. Inconstant political support for recent presidential power assertions is a central problem for presi-dents, a problem of political authority. Stephen Skowronek coined this term in his landmark book on the presidency (Skowronek 1997), and it is a rich con-cept much deserving of elaboration. Skowronek defines political authority as “the expectations that surround the exercise of power at a given moment; the perception of what is appropriate for a given president to do” (1997, 16). Presidential authority rests on “warrants” drawn from the politics of the moment to justify action and secure the legitimacy of changes. These warrants must come from the public and other institutional players in the national political system – members of Congress, interest groups, bureaucrats, and judges. When a president asserts formal or informal powers in a way extending beyond these warrants, the political costs are large. One does not have to look far to find examples of power assertions producing political problems for presidents. Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War, Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra operation, and George W. Bush’s Iraq war and detention policies are notable examples. What is the context in which political authority operates and why are presidents led to assert power in a way that compro-mises their political authority? Political authority operates within two contexts, that of the regime and the state. Skowronek notes that presidents often try to create lasting political alignments involving the masses and elites, but that constructing such align-ments is difficult and the most recent successes in reconstruction are those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. These hallowed figures are so remembered because they had warrants to create lasting political regimes and managed to do so. The enhanced powers of the contemporary presidency have encouraged the regime-building aspirations of recent presidents. That seems to have been the case with Reagan and George W. Bush, and perhaps with Barack Obama. To maintain expansive warrants for the use of presidential power, presidents need to maintain regime support. That is no small task, because the component parts of a political regime now are extensive. Robert Lieberman provides a definition:

Regimes appear at a variety of levels, from formal insti-

tutions (such as the structure of Congress and the administrative state) to the social bases of politics (such as party alignments and coalitions and patterns of interest representation); from ideas (such as prevailing beliefs about the proper role of government) to informal norms (such as patterns of congressional behavior). Nested within these broadly defined institutional arrangements are commitments to particular policies that become the touch-stone for political action and conflict for leaders and would-be leaders over the course of a generation or more. (Lieberman 2000, 275)

Consider the “warrants” necessary from such regimes in order for presidents to exercise their political power in a way that main-tains their political authority. A president needs support or at least permission from federal courts and Congress, steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate, back-ing from powerful, entrenched interest groups, and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presi-dents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of inadequate political authority to back their power assertions. In recent years, that has been the case. Regimes are now so far-flung that presidential mainte-nance of them is increasingly difficult. Two sorts of constraints, identified by Daniel Cook and Andrew Polsky, compound that difficulty. Endogenous constraints “result from the nature of the political agreement that binds participants” (Cook and Polsky 2005, 280). How well does the regime coalition stick together? Over time, presidents inevitably alienate parts of their coalition by the decisions they make. George W. Bush’s support for immi-gration reform, which inflamed conservatives in his party, is one recent example of this. Also confronting presidents are exogenous constraints, those arising from the political environment in which a regime operates (2005, 580-1). These include events (policy outcomes, international and domestic occurrences), and traits of national politics beyond regime control (changing electoral demographics, public opinion, and partisan polarization). Such constraints make the exercise of presidential power one with uncertain results for the White House. Presidents can better comprehend the elite elements of their regimes than they can the mass elements. The elite elements centrally involve party and interest group leaders and congres-sional officeholders whose commitments and agendas are well known to the White House. The mass elements are more volatile and difficult to gauge. The various factions of partisan coalitions often have disagreements, and in recent decades neither party has been able to secure a stable advantage over the other with the public overall. The large number of political independents and weak partisans remains a volatile element not readily susceptible to absorption into any president’s partisan regime. It is the mass

Fall 2009 9

aspects of politics that have made regime hegemony difficult for presidents to achieve. Volatile public opinion thus lies at the heart of the political authority problem for recent presidents. Presidential regime building is prone to failure. Regimes (1) don’t fit together neatly, (2) are in constant transformation, (3) are devices for balancing contentious operations of constitu-ent parts, and (4) thus “remain surface and instrumental things” (Orren and Skowronek 1998, 702). Another important reason for regime formation’s dim prospects is the instrumental thickening of the state itself. Presidents seek political authority in the context of a contemporary national state that has been subject, in Skowronek’s phrase, to “institutional thickening.” He defines its elements:

The greater autonomy of all political institutions and actors, the tighter integration of administrative services and supports into interest networks of social and economic power, and the consequent weakening of collective, cross-institutional resolve at the political center all constitute new encumbrances on presidentially led political reconstructions of American govern-ment. (2008, 98)

Sidney Milkis similarly describes an increasingly “thick” national state in which “the policy responsibility of the executive was increased, but Congress, the courts and . . . groups became in-volved in the details of administration,” producing among the two parties “not a challenge to the administrative state but . . . a battle for its services” (1993, 240, 289). The widespread presence of “issue networks” – comprised of legislators, interest groups, and bureaucrats – in contemporary national government is evidence of institutional thickening (Heclo, 1978). Thus as presidential powers have increased, so has the autonomy of other branches of government. The result is frequent power assertions by presidents, usually failing in domestic policy where Congress, courts, and interest groups are strong (recall Nixon’s unsuccessful attempts to expand impoundment powers), but more successful in national security matters (notably the inef-fectiveness of the War Powers Act of 1973 in regulating military actions ordered by presidents). All of this has created a “political authority cycle” that vexes contemporary presidents. The fate of regime authority for presidents is at best uncertain and usually ominous in this cycle. The two parties can call on some reliable regime components – interest groups and party activists – but these elements hardly

Fall 2009 10

produce consistent mass endorsement of a regime and its president’s political authority. Rather, the volatile mass compo-nents that consistently threaten and usually diminish presidential authority over time behave according to the following set of relationships. As presidents govern with their partisan regime elites, they are subject to both exogenous and endogenous events. Exogenous events come from without in the form of national or international occurrences that “just happen” to a president and policy results arriving quickly in response to current governance or more slowly from the actions of governance in years past. En-dogenous events occur as the component mass and elite elements of a partisan regime interact in response to presidential actions and exogenous events. Events inevitably affect public opinion, the volatile element in the cycle. New facts make new mass politics, as John McCain found out to his chagrin in the fall of 2008. In addition to immediate events, other influences upon mass attitudes include demographic changes and the persistence of loose partisanship and political independence, making firm mass dominance dif-ficult for any regime. More gradual changes in public opinion about the role of the state, captured in Stimson’s concept of a “public policy mood” (Stimson 2004) are also at work here. Public opinion then affects the “rhetorical conditions” of presidential leadership (Orren and Skowronek 1998, 694). Rhetorical prospects depend both on presidential job approval and prevailing ideas about what the proper role of government is, as the Lieberman quote above mentions. Stimson found the public policy mood moving rightward in the 1980s and 1990s and that was reflected in elite debates over policy (Stimson 2004). One institutional manifestation of changing rhetorical condi-tions is media framing and priming of issues and presidential governance, which recently has favored Obama as candidate and president (Project for Excellence in Journalism 2009, Center for Media and Public Affairs 2009, 2009). In recent years, rhetorical conditions have supported enhanced governance and accompa-nied the Democratic ascendancy in national governance. So also has public policy mood moved in a pro-Democratic direction (Stimson 2009). President Obama’s job approval was high in his early months in office. Given the volatility of events and public opinion, these trends can only be seen as tentative. The political authority cycle might be sketched as seen in Figure 1. Interaction effects surely occur among aspects of the cycle.

Figure 1. Political Authority Cycle

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Events Public opinion Rhetorical conditions PresidentialEndogenous - - - - - - - - - - - - > Policy mood < - - - - - - - - > Elite framing and priming < - - - - - -> and regime (to regime) Presidential job approval behaviorExogenous (including policy results)

Given the uncertainties of political authority, recent presidents have adopted a governing style that is personalized, preemptive, and, at times, isolated. Given the entrenched au-tonomy of other elite actors and the impermanence of public opinion, presidents have had to “sell themselves” in order to sell their governance. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcome institutional resistance to their policy agendas. Of course, this works only as long as the president remains personally popular, and eroding popularity, usually the norm for recent presidents, enhances exogenous and endogenous limits on regime formation. Since stable regimes have proven unattainable, presidents have resorted to a “preemp-tive” leadership style: “Hyphenated party labels, hybrid agendas, personal leadership, independent appeals – these are the emblems of the preemptive leadership stance” (Skowronek 2008, 109). Isolation can result when circumstances become adverse, as fel-low partisans object to presidential leadership and autonomous DC institutions offer stiff resistance, once a president becomes unpopular. Because of the absence of stable mass regime support, not seen since FDR, this is a frequent fate of presidents. The frustrations of popular and Washington leadership thus encourage presidents to exercise their formal powers to get results. As Sidney Milkis and Jesse Rhodes put it, this leads a president “to impose his will through the bureaucracy in pursuit of politics that substantially outstrip congressional and public support” (2008, 3). The frustrations of maintaining authority in order to consolidate their regimes’ control of government and politics encourage presidents to rely on their powers and to employ their political authority in support of their exercise of powers. Nixon attempted this when surrounded by Democrats in Washington, as did Clinton when surrounded by Republicans. Neither attempt ultimately did their parties any good, and Nixon’s efforts led to constitutional violations. For both Nixon and Clinton, the use of formal powers when political authority was deficient led to charges of illegitimacy. So the “presidential authority problem” has several parts. Authority among elites faces limits due to the institutional thickening in national government. Authority among the mass suffers from the limited size of partisan support in an era of wide-spread political independence and constantly shifting public opin-ion driven by events. Political authority, according to Skowronek, is designated in advance, works through institutions, and has en-forceable mandates and perceptions (Orren and Skowronek, 125). Nowadays such traits are hard for presidents to come by. Advance designations frequently vanish among American governing elites and the mass public. Institutions are less “workable” for presi-dents. Mandates and perceptions are now evanescent, much less enforceable. This leads to a “presidential power trap.” Maintaining authority is hard and frustrating work, and in seeking to maintain it, presidents encounter widespread constraints. Yet the modern presidency grants an incumbent many formal powers over execu-tive branch administration, foreign and national security policy. The power is there, if the authority is not. So why not use the power while you have it, if authority is so hard to garner? The risk is that by using such powers, a president effectively destroys his authority. Richard Nixon’s presidency, with its constitutional

Fall 2009 11

violations, is the signal example of this, but one can find evidence of the authority problem and power trap among other recent presidencies. Carter took his authority for granted, ignoring the maintenance of its elite and mass aspects, and paid the price. Rea-gan gradually relied more on executive power as authority prob-lems grew, leading to the Iran-Contra imbroglio. George Herbert Walker Bush exerted war powers but never found a stable basis in political authority. Clinton usually suffered an authority shortage and found his use of powers under steady political attack. George W. Bush’s use of war powers destroyed his authority during his second term. Barack Obama thus faces an authority problem and a power trap. Only by solving the former is he likely to avoid the latter. None of his predecessors has solved the political authority problem. It is the central political challenge confronted by mod-ern presidents.

Works Cited

Center for Media and Public Affairs. 2009. “Boosting Obama.” http://www.cmpa.com/news/4_27_2009.pdf (accessed June 2009).

Center for Media and Public Affairs. 2009. “Why Not the Best?” Media Monitor 23 (1): 3.

Cook, Daniel M. and Andrew J. Polsky. 2005. “Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State Under the Reagan Administration.” American Politics Research 33 (4): 577-605.

Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establish-ment.” In The New American Political System, edited by Anthony King, 87-124. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

Lieberman, Robert C. 2000. “Political Time and Policy Coali-tions: Structure and Agency in Presidential Power.” In Presiden-tial Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert Y. Shapiro, Martha Joynt Kumar, and Lawrence R. Jacobs, 274-310. New York: Columbia University Press.

Milkis, Sidney M. and Jesse H. Rhodes. 2009. “Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the Future of the New American Party System.” The Forum 7 (1): Article 7. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol7/iss1/art7/ (accessed June 2009).

Milkis, Sidney M. 1993. The President and the Parties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

continued page 14

Fall 2009 12

PResideNtial PROclamatiONs dataBase: PResideNtial PROclamatiONs PROject at the uNiveRsity Of hOustON

Jeremy D. BaileyBrandon Rottinghaus

Recent academic discussion has focused on the impor-tance of the unilateral presidency, that is, when presidents use their constitutional or legislative authority without consent from Congress. Several excellent recent texts (Mayer 2001; Cooper 2002; Howell 2003; Howell 2005) as well as a special edition of Presidential Studies Quarterly (the September 2005 issue) have been among those to advance this growing research agenda. These works provide evidence that a president’s ability to shape and act without the consent of Congress, the courts, and (often) the public is largely unchecked by traditional institutional or political arrangements. Although recent scholarship has expanded our under-standing of the relationship between the unilateral presidency and the political environment, there is still one area of unilateral presidential action that has received little attention: presidential proclamations. A presidential proclamation is “an instrument that states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)” (Cooper 2002, 116). By this definition, it is perhaps surprising that proclamations have yet to be studied. Presidents use proc-lamations to “define” situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders, then, carry the same force of law as executive orders; the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside govern-ment while proclamations are aimed at those outside government. On the other hand, most proclamations are largely ceremonial or symbolic. As a result, presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making. We believe that this lack of attention needs to be cor-rected for two reasons. First, in addition to the hundreds of ceremonial proclamations every year, presidents throughout his-tory have issued substantive policy-based proclamations cover-ing a wide range of policy issues. Second, because ceremonial proclamations have been largely dismissed, little is known about the role these rhetorical image-fostering proclamations serve in relation to policy-based proclamations and more generally within the president’s political arsenal. Through the collection of all proclamations from George Washington to the present and the creation of our searchable database, we hope to expand the literature on presidential power by exploring presidential procla-mations throughout history and seek to identify the importance of these tools as a policy making and symbolic instrument.

Examples of Proclamations in Action

Presidential Power. Even though proclamations are understudied, few would dispute that some proclamations retain a central place in American political and constitutional develop-

ment. Perhaps no proclamation is more famous than Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in ar-eas under Confederate control in 1863. In foreign policy, George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793 was important not only in determining that the United States would remain neutral in the conflict between England and France, but also, as suggested in the famous debate between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton about whether the president may determine without the Senate whether the United States would honor a prior treaty, in asserting the president’s primacy in managing foreign relations. Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation, to cite another example, was instrumental not only in undercutting the nullification movement before it gathered momentum but also in laying out the understanding of “Union” that the Whigs and, eventually, Abraham Lincoln would appropriate and expand in the decade leading up to the Civil War. Each of these proclama-tions articulated or announced a specific constitutional doctrine that was, in its day, debatable but is now part of the constitutional creed.

Policy Changes. Other, more recent, policy-based proclamations have also made a substantial impact on substan-tive public policy. For instance, President Nixon’s wage and price freeze in 1971 utilized his authority given to the executive by Congress to control inflation (under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Economic Stabilization Act of 1970). Proclama-tions are also used to quietly conduct foreign policy. Similarly, President Reagan used several proclamations to deny members of Nicaragua’s Sandinista government from entering the country (a government the Reagan Administration had ideological disagree-ments with). These actions invoking proclamations therefore often extend constitutionally-given presidential power that is potentially outside of public view and adds to the importance of studying these presidential actions.

Trade. The Trade Reform Act of 1974 established a shared relationship and allowed the president to make particular determinations about the economic trade status of goods. In this legislation, “not only was the President given a five-year mandate to enter into trade agreements to reduce all tariffs above 5% ad valorem by as much as 60%, the largest percentage ever granted in a trade bill, and to eliminate all tariffs below 5%, but for the first time in U.S. history, he was granted authority to negotiate agreements to harmonize, reduce, or eliminate all barriers to free trade” (Pastor 1980, 137). Further, Congress allowed the presi-dent, without consultation, to eliminate trade barriers and extend duty free entry of specific items under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) provision. In this case, Congress ceded its policy making (or regulating) power on trade to the White House, allowing the president some unilateral discretion in altering trade

Fall 2009 13

policy so long as these actions are within the statutory guidelines. Trade policy since 1974 suggests that presidents use executive proclamations to make these changes both in ways that comport with Congress’ interests and ways that do not (see Rottinghaus and Lim 2009).

Legal “Determinations.” Proclamations are also used for several kinds of legal determinations. Again, the authority for such determinations is granted to the president either by Congress or the Constitution, yet their use is often contentious. For in-stance, proclamations are often used to grant presidential pardons, particularly important for President Ford who pardoned both draft evaders in Vietnam and President Richard Nixon (Crouch 2009). Similarly, proclamations are used to invoke emergency powers. Presidents (pursuant to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651)) are required to declare formally the existence of a national emergency through executive proclamation and to specify what specific statutory authority they are using. This Act of Congress limits the president’s previously widespread powers and created more formalities in utilizing statutorily delegated emergency authority. President Bush’s (43) invocation of a national emergency following Hurricane Katrina (and the suspension of certain wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act) suggests that the controversy continues (Relyea 2007).

Federal Lands. Proclamations of national monuments are especially interesting because they are both ceremonial (they proclaim the change in status of the public lands) and they have an impact on policy making (they preserve existing rights, restrict future ones, designate a managing authority, and provide implementation guidance). Early in the 20th Century, Congress granted the president broad discretionary power to proclaim national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. § 431-433). The Act provides for unilateral lawmaking because the president is not required to consult with Congress, the state in which the monument is located, or the public prior to designa-tion. However, even though a proclamation carries the force of Congress behind it because the president is acting pursuant to the authority vested in the Act (Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co, v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 (1952))), presidents sometimes take the initiative to make significant decisions without consulting Congress. For instance, President Clinton’s declaration of federal lands for national monuments under the Antiquities Act (Lacey 2000) caught the government of Utah and the United States Con-gress off-guard but served to advance the President’s priorities for land use (Belco and Rottinghaus 2009).

Ceremonial. Although less significant in terms of public policy, proclamations are also used ceremonially by presidents to honor a group or situation or to call attention to certain issues or events. For instance, President George H. W. Bush issued a proclamation to honor veterans of World War II and President Ronald Reagan called attention to the health of the nation’s eyes by proclaiming a “Save Your Vision Week.” But ceremonial proclamations need to be better under-stood in the context of the public presidency. It would be surpris-ing, for example, if celebrations of ceremonial national ties and appeals to constituencies did not conflict with one another. In the

case of the very first proclamation, Washington’s day of Thanks-giving, Thomas Jefferson later refused (on Establishment Clause grounds) to continue such proclamations. Jefferson even consid-ered announcing his departure from Washington’s precedent, but in calculation that his popularity in New England would suffer, he made the change in silence. More recently, Barack Obama’s Administration indicated it would scale back White House plans for the oft-proclaimed “National Day of Prayer” (traditionally marked since 1952), a decision that was met with disapproval by both supporters and opponents (Foley 2009).

Website Launched

To further the academic discussion of presidential proclamations, we have launched The Presidential Proclamations Project at the University of Houston [http://www.polsci.uh.edu/database/proc-database.asp]. This is the most complete record of presidential proclamations (and related similar directives) known to exist and hosts a universe of proclamations from President George Wash-ington to President George W. Bush. We have approximately 15,000 records and counting.

Conclusion

Recent scholarship and journalistic accounts of unilateral presi-dential actions have recast our understanding of modern presi-dential policy making. Whereas scholars once emphasized the extent to which the president’s power is limited to the “power to persuade,” scholars now appreciate the ways in which presidents are able to draw on their inherent authority under the Constitution and delegated authority under congressionally authorized statutes to unilaterally make policy. We need to continue to explore how presidents use unilateral powers as a mechanism to influence, control, or coordinate with Congress. We hope our website is a step in that direction.

References

Belco, Michelle and Brandon Rottinghaus. 2009. “Proclama-tion 6920: Using Executive Power to Set a New Direction for the Management of National Monuments.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 (September): 605-618.

Cooper, Phillip J. 2002. By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action. Lawrence: University of Kan-sas Press.

Crouch, Jeffrey. 2009. The Presidential Pardon Power. Law-rence: University of Kansas Press.

Elsea, Jennifer K. 2003. “Presidential Authority to Detain ‘En-emy Combatants.’” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33 (Septem-ber): 568-601.

Foley, Ryan. 2009. “Obama Defends, Curtails National Day of Prayer.” Chicago Tribune, May 6.

Fall 2009 14

Howell, William D. 2003. Power Without Persuasion: The Poli-tics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Howell, William D. 2005. “Unilateral Powers: A Brief Over-view.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (September): 417-39.

Lacey, Marc. 2000. “Blocked by Congress, Clinton Wields a Pen.” New York Times, 5 July.

Mayer, Kenneth R. 2001. With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pastor, R. A. 1980. Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Economic Policy, 1929-1976. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Relyea, Harold C. 2007. CRS Report for Congress: National Emergency Powers (98-505). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Rottinghaus, Brandon and Elvin Lim. 2009. “Proclaiming Trade Policy: Presidential Unilateral Enactment of Trade Policy.” American Politics Research 37 (November): 1003-1023.

Jeremy D. Bailey and Brandon Rottinghaus are Assistant Profes-sors of Political Science at the University of Houston.

continued from page 11

Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2009. “Obama’s First 100 Days.” April 28. http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/obamas_first_100_days (accessed June 2009).

Rudalevige, Andrew. 2006. The New Imperial Presidency: Re-newing Presidential Power after Watergate. Ann Arbor: Univer-sity of Michigan Press.

Skowronek, Stephen. 2008. Presidential Leadership in Political Time: Reprise and Renewal. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.

Skowronek, Stephen. 1997. The Politics Presidents Make: Lead-ership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Stimson, James. 2009. “Public Policy Mood: 1952 to 2008.” http://www.unc.edu/~jstimson/ (accessed June 2009).

Stimson, James. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tatalovich, Raymond and Thomas S. Engeman. 2003. The Presi-dency and Political Science: Two Hundred Years of Constitution-al Debate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Steven E. Schier is Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon Profes-sor of Political Science at Carleton College.

Fall 2009 15

Arnold, Peri E. Remaking the Presidency: Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, 1901-1916. University Press of Kansas. 277 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616596.

Bessette, Joseph M. and Jeffrey K. Tulis, eds. The Constitutional Presidency. Johns Hopkins University Press. 384 pp. $30.00 paper. ISBN: 978-0801892967.

Branch, Taylor. The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President. Simon and Schuster. 720 pp. $35.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-1416543336.

Cohen, Jeffrey E. Going Local: Presidential Leadership in the Post-Broadcast Age. Cambridge University Press. 256 pp. $26.99 paper. ISBN: 978-0521141437.

Cole, Donald B. Vindicating Andrew Jackson: The 1828 Elec-tion and the Rise of the Two-Party System. University Press of Kansas, 254 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616619.

Cooper, Phillip J. The War Against Regulation: From Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. University Press of Kansas. 288 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616817.

Denton, Robert E. Jr. The 2008 Presidential Campaign: A Com-munication Perspective. Rowman and Littlefield. 320 pp. $25.60 paper. ISBN: 978-0742564350.

Edwards, George C. III, and William G. Howell. The Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency. Oxford University Press. 896 pp. $150.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-0199238859.

Fettmann, Eric, and Steven Lomazow. FDR’s Deadly Secret. Pub-licAffairs. 296 pp. $25.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-1586487447.

Gillon, Steven M. The Kennedy Assassination – 24 Hours After: Lyndon B. Johnson’s Pivotal First Day as President. Basic Books. 320 pp. $25.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0465018703.

Glad, Betty. An Outsider in the White House: Jimmy Carter, His Advisors, and the Making of American Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press. 398 pp. $29.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0801448157.

Glasrud, Bruce A. and Cary D. Wintz, eds. African Americans and the Presidency: The Road to the White House. Routledge. 256 pp. $26 95 paper. ISBN: 978-0415803922.

Golway, Terry. Together We Cannot Fail: FDR and the American Presidency in Years of Crisis, with CD. Sourcebooks MediaFu-sion. 320 pp. $29.99 cloth. ISBN: 978-1402217166.

BOOk scaN

Recent Books on the PResidency

Goren, Lilly J., ed. You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: Women, Politics, and Popular Culture. University Press of Kentucky. 300 pp. $32.50 cloth. ISBN: 978-0813125442.

Gould, Lewis L. The William Howard Taft Presidency. University Press of Kansas. 269 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616749.

Gutgold, Nichola D. Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton “Won” in 2008. Lexington. 166 pp. $48.35 cloth. ISBN: 978-0739133712.

Jones, Charles O. The American Presidency (A Brief Insight). Sterling. 224 pp. $14.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-1402768903.

Kleinerman, Benjamin A. The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power. University Press of Kan-sas. 322 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616657.

Krutz, Glen S. and Jeffrey S. Peake. Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements: International Commitments in a System of Shared Powers. University of Michigan Press. 264 pp. $75.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-0472116874.

Lester, Paul Martin. On Floods and Photo Ops: How Her-bert Hoover and George W. Bush Exploited Catastrophes. University Press of Mississippi. 240 pp. $50.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-1604732863.

Maass, Matthias, ed. The World Views of the U.S. Presidential Election: 2008. Palgrave Macmillan. 280 pp. $90.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-0230618688.

Maranto, Robert, Tom Lansford, Jeremy Johnson, eds. Judging Bush. Stanford University Press. 360 pp. $16.47 paper. ISBN: 978-0804760898.

Milkis, Sidney M. Theodore Roosevelt, The Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy. University Press of Kansas. 361 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616671.

Morgan, Iwan. The Age of Deficits: Presidents and Unbalanced Budgets from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. University Press of Kansas. 375 pp. $34.95 cloth. ISBN: 978-0700616855.

Munoz, Vincent Phillip. God and the Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson. Cambridge University Press. 252 pp. $24.99 paper. ISBN: 978-0521735797.

Popadiuk, Roman. The Leadership of George Bush: An Insider’s View of the Forty-first President. Texas A&M University Press. 248 pp. $30.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-1603441124.

Ratnesar, Romesh. Tear Down This Wall: A City, a President, and the Speech that Ended the Cold War. Simon and Schuster. 240 pp. $27.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-1416556909.

Fall 2009 16

Schier, Steven E., ed. Ambition and Division: Legacies of the George W. Bush Presidency. University of Pittsburgh Press. 320 pp. $27.95 paper. ISBN: 978-0822960492.

Sheckels, Theodore F. Cracked but Not Shattered: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Unsuccessful Campaign for the Presidency. Lexington. 232 pp. $29.95 paper. ISBN: 978-0739137307.

Thomas, Helen, and Craig Crawford. Listen Up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do. Scribner. 224 pp. $24.00 cloth. ISBN: 978-1439148150.

Trafzer, Clifford E., ed. American Indians/American Presi-dents: A History. Smithsonian. 288 pp. $19.79 cloth. ISBN: 978-0061466533.

Troy, Gil. The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduc-tion. Oxford University Press. 168 pp. $8.60 paper. ISBN: 978-0195317107.

Watts, Duncan. The American Presidency. Edinburgh University Press. 224 pp. $22.50 paper. ISBN: 978-0748635351.

Weinberger, Seth. Restoring the Balance: War Powers in an Age of Terror. Praeger. 224 pp. $31.96 cloth. ISBN: 978-0313360398.

Wood, B. Dan. The Myth of Presidential Representation. Cambridge University Press. 240 pp. $25.99 paper. ISBN: 978-0521133425.

Woolner, David B. and Henry L. Henderson, eds. FDR and the Environment. Palgrave Macmillan. 288 pp. $28.00 paper. ISBN: 978-0230619685.

Worek, Michael, ed. My Fellow Americans: Presidents Speak to the People in Troubled Times. Firefly Books. 312 pp. $22.76 cloth. ISBN: 978-1554075492.

Wroe, Andrew and Jon Herbert. Assessing the George W. Bush Presidency. Edinburgh University Press. 256 pp. $29.50 paper. ISBN: 978-0748627417.

Baumgartner, Jody C. and Rhonda Evans Case. “Constitutional Design of the Executive: Vice Presidencies in Comparative Perspective.” Congress and the Presidency, 36 (Summer 2009): 148-163.

Belco, Michelle and Brandon Rottinghaus. “Presidential Procla-mation 6920: Using Executive Power to Set a New Direction for the Management of National Monuments.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 605-618.

Berry, Michael J. “Controversially Executing the Law: George W. Bush and the Constitutional Signing Statement.” Congress and the Presidency, 36 (Autumn 2009): 244-271.

Bond, Jon R., Richard Fleisher, and Glen S. Krutz. “Malign Ne-glect: Evidence That Delay Has Become the Primary Method of Defeating Presidential Appointments.” Congress and the Presi-dency, 36 (Autumn 2009): 226-243.

Bostdorff, Denise M. “Judgment, Experience, and Leadership: Candidate Debates on the Iraq War in the 2008 Presidential Primaries.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 12 (Summer 2009): 223-277.

Burden, Barry C. and D. Sunshine Hillygus. “Opinion Formation, Polarization, and Presidential Reelection.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 619-635.

Burke, John P. “The Obama Presidential Transition: An Early As-sessment.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 574-604.

Butler, R. Lawrence. “Momentum in the 2008 Presidential Con-tests.” Polity, 41 (July 2009): 331-344.

Caraley, Demetrios James. “Three Trends over Eight Presidential Elections, 1980-2008: Toward the Emergence of a Democratic Majority Realignment?” Political Science Quarterly, 124 (Fall 2009): 423-442.

Caswell, Bruce E. “The Presidency, the Vote, and the Formation of New Coalitions.” Polity, 41 (July 2009): 388-407.

Charnock, Emily Jane, James A. McCann, and Kathryn Dunn Tenpas. “Presidential Travel from Eisenhower to George W. Bush: An ‘Electoral College’ Strategy.” Political Science Quar-terly, 124 (Summer 2009): 323-339.

Cohen, Jeffrey E. “Alternative Futures: Comment of Terry Moe’s ‘The Revolution in Presidential Studies.’” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 725-735.

jOuRNal scaN

Recent ARticles on the PResidency

Fall 2009 17

Crockett, David A. “The Rhetorical Presidency: Still Stand-ing Tall.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 932-940.

Crotty, William. “Policy and Politics: The Bush Administra-tion and the 2008 Presidential Election.” Polity, 41 (July 2009): 282-311.

Dickinson, Matthew J. “We All want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 736-770.

Dolan, Chris J., John Frendreis, and Raymond Tatalovich. “A Presidential Economic Scorecard: Performance and Perception.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 42 (October 2009): 689-694.

Dull, Matthew and Patrick S. Roberts. “Continuity, Competence, and the Succession of Senate-Confirmed Agency Appointees, 1989-2009.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 432-453.

Edwards, Jason A. “Sanctioning Foreign Policy: The Rhetorical Use of President Harry Truman.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 454-472.

Erikson, Robert S. “The American Voter and the Economy, 2008.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 42 (July 2009): 467-471.

Frank, David A. “The Prophetic Voice and the Face of the Other in Barack Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’ Address, March 18, 2008.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 12 (Summer 2009): 167-194.

Giglio, James N. “The Eagleton Affair: Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern, and the 1972 Vice Presidential Nomination.” Presi-dential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 647-676.

Gupta, Debrasree Das and Mark J. Rozell. “Presidential Direct Action and Policy Continuity: The Case of U.S. International Population Policy.” Social Science Quarterly, 90 (December 2009): 945-959.

Heerwig, Jennifer A. and Brian J. McCabe. “Education and So-cial Desirability Bias: The Case of a Black Presidential Candi-date.” Social Science Quarterly, 90 (September 2009): 674-686.

Holbrook, Thomas M. “Economic Considerations and the 2008 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 42 (July 2009): 473-478.

Holtzman, Richard. “Bush’s Adventures in the National Service Policy Arena and Five Lessons for President Obama.” White House Studies, 9:1 (2009): 67-83.

Ivie, Robert L. and Oscar Giner. “More Good, Less Evil: Contest-ing the Mythos of National Insecurity in the 2008 Presidential Primaries.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 12 (Summer 2009): 279-301.

Jacobs, Lawrence R. “Building Reliable Theories of the Presi-dency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 771-780.

Johnson, Clay. “The 2008-2009 Presidential Transition: Preparing Federal Agencies.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 819-822.

Keller, Jonathan W. “Explaining Rigidity and Pragmatism in Political Leaders: A General theory and a Plausibility Test from the Reagan Presidency.” Political Psychology, 30 (June 2009): 465-498.

Kumar, Martha Joynt. “The 2008-2009 Presidential Transition Through the Voices of Its Participants.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 823-858.

Laracey, Mel. “The Rhetorical Presidency Today: How Does It Stand Up?” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 908-931.

Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Richard Nadeau. “Obama and the Economy in 2008.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 42 (July 2009): 479-483.

Linn, Suzanna, Jonathan Moody, and Stephanie Asper. “Explain-ing the Horse Race of 2008.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 42 (July 2009): 459-466.

Mayer, Kenneth R. “Thoughts on ‘The Revolution in Presidential Studies.’” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 781-785.

Medhurst, Martin J. “Mitt Romney, ‘Faith in America,’ and the Dance of Religion and Politics in American Culture.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 12 (Summer 2009): 195-221.

Moe, Terry M. “The Revolution in Presidential Studies.” Presi-dential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 701-724.

Panagopoulos, Costas. “Preelection Poll Accuracy in the 2008 General Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (Decem-ber 2009): 896-907.

Paulson, Arthur. “Party Change and the Shifting Dynamics in Presidential Nominations: The Lessons of 2008.” Polity, 41 (July 2009): 312-330.

Pika, Joseph A. “The White House Office of Public Liaison.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 549-573.

Richman, Jesse. “Congress on the Line: The 2008 Congressional Election and the Obama Presidency.” White House Studies, 9:1 (2009): 21-34.

Ridout, Travis N., Brandon Rottinghaus, and Nathan Hosey. “Fol-lowing the Rules? Candidate Strategy in Presidential Primaries.” Social Science Quarterly, 90 (December 2009): 777-795.

Fall 2009 18

Rocca, Michael S. “9/11 and Presidential Support in the 107th Congress.” Congress and the Presidency, 36 (Autumn 2009): 272-296.

Rockman, Bert A. “Does the Revolution in Presidential Studies Mean ‘Off With the President’s Head?’” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 786-794.

Rovner, Joshua. “Campaign Tactics and American Grand Strategy in the Election of 2008.” White House Studies, 9:1 (2009): 35-49.

Shogan, Colleen J. “The Political Utility of Empathy in Presiden-tial Leadership.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 859-877.

Skowronek, Stephen. “The Conservative Insurgency and Presi-dential Power: A Developmental Perspective on the Unitary Executive.” Harvard Law Review, 122 (June 2009): 2070-2103.

Showronek, Stephen. “Mission Accomplished.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 795-804.

Silverstein, Gordon. “Bush, Cheney, and the Separation of Pow-ers: A Lasting Legal Legacy?” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 878-895.

Sussman, Glen. “Choosing a New Direction: The Presidential Election of 2008.” White House Studies, 9:1 (2009): 1-20.

‘t Hart, Paul, Karen Tindall, and Christer Brown. “Crisis Leader-ship of the Bush Presidency: Advisory Capacity and Presidential Performance in the Acute Stages of the 9/11 and Katrina Crises.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 473-493.

Uscinski, Joseph E. “The Timing of Presidential Cinema.” Social Science Quarterly, 90 (September 2009): 687-702.

Vaughn, Justin S. and Jose D. Villalobos. “Obama’s Empty Cup-board: Contending with Administrative Vacancies and the Threat to Neutral Competence.” International Journal of Public Admin-istration, 32 (9, 2009): 792-799.

Vaughn, Justin S. and Jose D. Villalobos. “The Obama Admin-istration’s Challenges after the ‘War on Science’: Reforming Staffing Practices and Protecting Scientific Integrity in the Execu-tive Branch.” Review of Policy Research, 26 (November 2009): 803-819.

Villalobos, Jose D. and Justin S. Vaughn. “Presidential Staffing and Public Opinion: How Public Opinion Influences Politiciza-tion.” Administration & Society, 41 (July 2009): 449-469.

Weatherford, M. Stephen. “Comparing Presidents’ Economic Policy Leadership.” Perspectives on Politics, 7 (September 2009): 537-560.

Wertheim, Stephen. “Reluctant Liberator: Theodore Roosevelt’s Philosophy of Self-Government and Preparation for Philippine Independence.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 494-518.

Wheeler, Darren A. “Checking Presidential Detention Power in the War on Terror: What Should We Expect from the Judiciary?” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 677-700.

Wiesehomeier, Nina and Kenneth Benoit. “Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition.” Journal of Politics, 71 (October 2009): 1435-1447.

Wilson, Hugh A. “President Eisenhower and the Development of Active Labor Market Policy in the United States: A Revision-ist View.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39 (September 2009): 519-548.

Wood, B. Dan. “Presidential Saber Rattling and the Economy.” American Journal of Political Science, 53 (July 2009): 695-709.

Wood, B. Dan. “Pontificating About Moe’s Pontifications.” Presi-dential Studies Quarterly, 39 (December 2009): 805-818.

Wood, B. Dan and Han Soo Lee. “Explaining the President’s Is-sue Based Liberalism: Pandering, Partisanship, or Pragmatism.” Journal of Politics, 71 (October 2009): 1577-1592.

Zinman, Donald A. “Passing the Torch Through Political Time: Heir Apparent Presidents and the Governing Party.” White House Studies, 9:1 (2009): 51-65.