Presidential Campaigns and Presidential Accountability

Introduction: Campaigning for Accountability

1 Introduction Campaigning for Accountability We made a series of what we felt were key statements on the American system, but I’m not sure how many really sank into the electorate. We couldn’t tell if any made a difference. That’s one reason why LBJ didn’t feel particularly bound to follow through on everything. If we had been sure that an issue had been important, however, you can be sure of our reaction. —Aide to Lyndon Johnson (quoted in Light 1999) Presidential election campaigns, and the electorate at which they are aimed, routinely come under fire from scholars, journalists, and pundits alike. Political analysts push candidates to clarify their policy differences. Scholars criticize campaigns for containing too little issue substance and specificity. And both shake their heads solemnly at voters who cannot correctly identify the policy positions of the candidates. Reading the critics, the presidential campaign hardly sounds like a successful process for choosing leaders, much less an effective link in democratic accountability. In fact, presidential candidates are generally clear on at least one thing—their lists of problems and priorities. The public cares about these priorities and uses them in evaluating the contenders. What’s more, in the long and repetitive campaign, citizens come to associate the candidates with their respective agenda priorities. The campaign establishes expectations about where a president will exert his effort once in office . Adherence to, or neglect of, these expectations goes some way in explaining presidential approval. And withdrawal of approval serves as an informal sanction against presidents who ignore the problems they campaigned on. The fortunes of our most recent presidents early in their administrations serve as a useful illustration. Figure I.1 makes clear the very different patterns in the presidential approval of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama in the first year of each presidency.1 President Bill Clinton began well enough, with approval rates in the mid-50s. The trend line for Clinton’s ratings, though, falls below 50 percent in mid-April 1993 and doesn’t reach this midpoint again until early December 1993. Clinton’s early tenure was rife with agenda distraction (gays in the military), agenda revision (concern for the economy shifted from unemployment and the fairness of the tax burden to the budget deficit and the response of the bond market), and agenda delay (health care, a signature priority, was put off until late October). President George W. Bush, too, begins with approval ratings in the mid-50s. For Bush, though, the trend line in this early period never falls below 52 percent. While upticks and downturns are visible in Bush’s pre–9/11 approval, they are modest compared to those for Clinton. Unquestionably Bush turned out to be a controversial president, but most of the controversy arose after the agenda-changing terrorist attacks. In the first eight months of office, he spent a great deal of energy on two of his campaign priorities, education and tax cuts, securing legislative victories on both before the year’s end. President Barack Obama’s presidency started off in a remarkably strong position compared to his predecessors. The trend in Obama’s approval begins in the mid-60s and only dips below 60 percent at the end of May 2009. His numbers decline steadily throughout the year, dropping below 55 percent at the end of July, and below the coveted 50 percent in December. Obama, true to his campaign emphasis, succeeded in securing the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act within his first month in office, allocating $787 billion for economic stimulus, with $237 billion targeted toward tax cuts aimed at the middle class, and the bulk of the sum aimed at saving and creating jobs. And as the year drew to a close, Obama seemed all but certain to enact comprehensive health-care reform. Clinton’s average approval in his first year is 48 percent; Bush’s average approval prior to the attacks of September 11 is 55 percent; and Obama’s average approval in his first year is 57 percent. Part of these differences, I maintain, arises from the degree to which each president attended to his campaign priorities. This is not to say that citizens can tell you precisely what these 2 introduction Figure 1.1 FirstYear Presidential Approval: Clinton, Bush, Obama presidents promised as candidates, their policy stands, or their campaign pledges. But the public...