WEEK 6 BLOG
How exactly do you consider presidential "legislative success"? For you, is the notion of "roll call" victories important? Do you view agenda victories as more important? Do you feel that in the situation of "divided government" the presidential veto, when used to halt Congress from acting, is a form of success? Or does the negative power of the veto conflict with the ways in which the "FDR" model of presidential leadership of Congress has been touted by many scholars?
Presidents
I think legislative success is whenever a President is able to pass any legislation they intended to pass. I think a President is elected largely based on the agenda they push. So when they enter office a barometer of their success is directly linked to how much legislation they pass to implement/further their agenda. To me that's legislative success. Now depending on their relationship with Congress, whether it be hostile, whether they have a divided government, or whatever the case, the level of how "legislatively successful" they appear will differ. A President who may have an easier time getting legislation through Congress may seem more successful than one who feels they have to use a "Presidential veto," but to me it's success nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI agree largely with Rochelle. I believe that agenda successes are much better indicators of presidential success than anything, even though it also has its shortcomings; for example, divided government can completely decimate a president's attempts to pass their own agenda. However, as we discussed in class, position taking on roll-call votes seems too wishy-washy to me and a poor indicator of presidential success. The graphs that Professor Conley showed us is a testament to that, with very high percents of successful position-taking matched with very low overall occurrences of this position-taking (as seen with Obama).
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the veto, I am largely opposed to it. I appreciate and respect how the veto used to be exclusively designated for unconstitutional legislation, but now it has mostly devolved to a matter of personal or party preference. While I think legislation can certainly fall into a gray area, that's where the judicial system could step in and implement their checks and balances on both the legislative and executive branches. Overall, I feel that the negative power of the veto isn't really helpful in fostering a strong federal government. I prefer simple logic in terms of legislation: even if I don't necessarily agree with the bill, if it passes in Congress then that's due process. Unless I saw anything fishy or unconstitutional, I would let it pass.
I think Pika and Maltese identified exactly what presidential legislative needs in order to be successful. “ Studies have identified at least six factors that affect presidents ability to achieve their legislative goals: (1) partisan and ideological support in Congress, (2) popular support, (3) style in dealing with Congress, (4) the contexts in which they must operate, (5) cyclical trends in presidential – congressional relations, and (6) the content of their domestic program.” Support for a particular president depends on how united the president’s party is. I agree with Rochelle and Casey as well about agenda victories. When campaigning candidates heavily push their agenda in order to get elected. At the beginning of a president’s term is when they are most popular and can push their agenda the most successfully. In my opinion, I don’t see the presidential veto as a form of success. I can respect the reason why it was created but politics have drastically changed. Politicians move along party lines so closely so you can almost bet that if a bill came from the presidents opposing party then they are most likely to veto it. I don’t think it represents democracy well. The power of the negative veto does not unite the government in taking action. If Congress passes a bill then it must represent their constituency. And if it does not then that politician will pay the consequence next time they are up for re-election or it may be repealed.
ReplyDeleteI think agenda victories are the best indicator of legislative success for a president. When a presidential candidate is campaigning, he will usually have an agenda or piece of legislation that he is putting out there in order to gather support to win the presidency. This is the platform by which he is elected as president. I think it's very important that the president achieve a level of success with the agenda that he was elected to push.
ReplyDeleteAs for the veto power, I think it's a form of success for the president, as he can veto bills that work against his agenda or bills that he believes are detrimental to the country. This can be viewed positively by the public, who might see the president as staying true to the agenda he promised to bring to the white house. However, the veto could also be seen negatively. The president may use this power for partisan reasons or for personal reasons, which can be seen as hindering democracy. The president should be careful with the veto power, because while it can be a form of success, it can also backfire if the president uses it with disregard to public opinion.
I consider legislative success by the notion of agenda victories. The reason for this is roll call victories allow the president to strategically pick which side he wants to support and therefore skews the numbers. Agenda victories show that the president is getting what he wants through Congress. If a president’s agenda does not get through Congress, then it should be considered a legislative failure.
ReplyDeleteIt should be considered a form of success when there is a divided government and the president uses his veto to stop legislation. The reason for this is that no president should be allowing legislation that he does not believe in to pass his desk. If he follows FDR model of presidential leadership of Congress and he does not veto it, then it should be considered a failure. I believe that constitutionality should not have a role in a president passing legislation because that it why the judicial system is in place.
Like Rochelle and Casey, I think that legislative success relies more heavily on agenda victories than on roll call victories. Every president is elected based on their own agenda, which typically calls for specific changes in government policies. These changes consequently have an effect on everyday lives. If a president is able to legitimately pass laws that adhere to his original platform, then I would consider it to be a legislative success for that particular administration. This is because the president has accomplished what he set out to do when elected.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s political sphere it seems that divided government is much more common. After the first two years of a president’s term in office (commonly referred to as the honeymoon period) congressionally elections are held which usually result in an influx of opposing party representatives. This obviously makes it much tougher on the president to pass legislation in favor of his original agenda or the platform that he ran on. Therefore the question becomes, can a president be deemed legislatively successful by vetoing laws that do not comply with his agenda. On the surface I would say no. Obviously these presidential vetoes depend on the circumstances, however when I think of legislative success, I typically think of the “FDR” model where the president and congress are working together to pass laws for the betterment of the American people.
In my opinion, Presidential legislative success does not equate roll call success. In the modern presidency, administrations should be judged on how well they accomplish the agenda that they set out publicly (Obama's healthcare or W's education reforms for example). These modern presidents are in the media so often that they are now defined by certain agenda goals, which I believe is a better definition of Presidential legislative success.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the presidential veto power, it CAN be used in a victory for the President because it is an explicit Constitutional power. However, excessive use of this power can give the impression that a president does not exactly care for the legislative duties of Congress. But if a bill reaches his desk that conflicts with his platform, then I believe it will be victory for a president if the veto leads to a better version of the bill.
I agree with Nick-I think presidential legislative success can be measured by agenda victories. If the president is able to successfully promote and establish his political agenda it becomes a huge accomplishment in his presidency.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the American Revolution, the King was seen as the problem to be solved and this lingered in the Founders minds as they began to construct our republic. In fact, the Founders were so hesitant to have an executive that originally there was none. However, people soon realized that this would not work. While the founders concluded that an executive was necessary, their fear of tyranny remained ubiquitous. As Maltese observes, "those who invented the presidency in 1787 did not expect the office to become the nation's central political institution." Aside from the power in the role of the presidency alone, there is also much power in the president’s ability to veto a bill. I don’t think that the veto power, when used to halt Congress from acting, can be considered a form of success. When exercising the veto power, the president should always do so with the good of the American people in mind. If the president disagrees with Congress so much so that he must veto a bill-this indicates a difference in goals which could foster an even greater divide between the two. Could this be considered a success? For the president, some would say yes. But for Americans (who are to be directly represented by Congress)-probably not.
Presidents are elected into office through their political views of reform as well as their political agenda among a few things. Legislative success is a broad term that allows room for individual interpretation, but in my personal view legislative success occurs when a commander in chief is able to pass a piece of legislation that he was elected on and was part of his political agenda. This can also include passing legislation that he has promoted and is heavily favored by members of congress and the general public, but with the current divided government it seems more impossible than practical for a legislation to be passed in such nature. A president must be weary in a divided government of using a presidential veto and allow the democratic system to run as it was intended to. Presidential vetos used to halt congress from acting can only be deemed a success in under very certain circumstances. A Presidential veto goes against the concept of uniting congress and can damage the democratic system. Those elected into Congress were elected to collectively unite to pass legislation for the betterment of their constituents. A veto undermines the view of Congress and can be more damaging for the democratic system overall.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the most helpful and true measure of presidential legislative success can be measured by number of items on the presidential agenda that pass through Congress and are enacted. A heavily partisan Congress can prevent items on the president's agenda from passing, therefore making the president more legislatively unsuccessful. I agree with Steven in that a presidential "roll call" victory skews the numbers because it allows a president to strategically pick which legislation to support.
ReplyDeleteAs for the presidential veto, I believe that it is a positive and constructive thing, in most cases. Many presidents do abuse the power, but most also work to ensure that their vetoes are applied to issues that need it. There are circumstances in which a president abuses the power, but I believe that it is largely positive.
The agenda victories are a better determinant of presidential success than roll call victories. In class, we reviewed that roll call “victories” are not definitive enough to show the real influence the president has over Congress. Presidents are elected based on their promises to the people. In many instances, fulfilling the promises made to the people involved some form of legislative action. This agenda that the president pushes characterizes the whole term. It would truly be a failure for a president to be incapable of delivering the change that is promised.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the president’s exercise of the veto power is a form of success in that it shows the power the president has over the Congress. In the case of the divided government, the president can completely decide the outcome of most legislation giving he/she even more power. There are some dangers that accompany this amount of power. Legislative power should not rest so heavily on a single person, in my opinion. I can understand that presidents may want to grasp as much power as possible but the government needs to be functional. The president has the power to hinder the government’s functionality if he/she is not amendable to compromise.
I believe that a president's legislative success can only be measured by evaluating the pieces of legislation that he specifically proposed to Congress, whether through spoken word and agenda or written endeavors. Because of their easily manipulated nature, roll call votes are essentially useless; furthermore, they don't actually indicate any action on behalf of the president.
ReplyDeleteThe presidential veto is undeniably a powerful tool in divided government, especially in a highly partisan government like the one we are experiencing. Whether or not these vetoes are a to be viewed as a success or failure is completely contingent on the piece of legislation vetoed and if that legislation was in accordance with the president's agenda or not.
I believe that presidential “legislative success” is considered the amount of legislation that a President is able to have passed in Congress. I do view agenda victories as more important as a President is elected based off of their proposed agenda, so their success during their term is based largely on legislation that pushes their agenda. I do believe that the presidential veto is a form of success as it is a vital check on the legislative branch. While the negative power of the veto is obviously the fact that a President can simply veto without trying to compromise, the veto still remains as the most effective check of the legislative branch and forces Congress to compromise, even during times of divided government.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the general consensus is that agenda victories attribute to presidential success, I’ll have to disagree with the few who have mentioned “roll call” victories. I believe that roll-call victories are also a success for the president and his agenda. Roll call victories involve your position winning the majority vote in the House and the Senate, if the president’s position wins the majority of both, then that is in fact a win for him and his agenda because not only do his agenda victories further his success but also the roll call victories add to the progress of his agenda. The polarization of the government makes the presidential veto more impactful than ever. As more political leaders cling to the far left and the far right, vetoes can become more about what the president agrees with as opposed to things beneficial to the country. I’ll have the agree with the very first comment by Rochelle that whether a president has an easier time getting his legislation passed than another who feels a veto is necessary, either way, getting their agenda through is the main goal and the route to success.
ReplyDeleteI think that a President can consider it a legislative success anytime that they can pass a new piece of legislation through congress, whether or not its a big or little piece of legislation. In addition to this, it is also important that they get public victories on things that are important to them and a good way to show this is through roll call victories. However, Presidents ultimate legislative success should be judged on how well they get legislation related to their agenda passed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, using the veto power when you have divided government isn't really a success. I think that a success would be if the president could get a compromise from congress so that a veto isn't necessary. However, there are certain situations where it could be considered a victory, such as vetoing something that goes directly against their agenda.
I think that the more important victories are agenda victories. Presidents campaign on certain agenda issues and we vote for our president based on if we agree with what they want to and how well we think they can accomplish those goals. If a president spends his first term in office and accomplishes absolutely nothing he campaigned on his chances to win reelection are much slimmer because he didn't deliver on what he promised the first time around. Regardless of how many "roll call" victories he has the American people are much more likely to look at what he has accomplished in terms of policy and fulfilling his original agenda. I have mixed feelings about presidential veto. I think it is a great tool for the president to have especially if Congress is trying to hastily push something through that may not be the best option for the country. However, I am not a fan of presidents threatening to veto so that Congress will change certain things without the president actually having to veto. I feel that generally presidential veto is more of a negative thing but it is a good power for the president to have the opportunity to have a say on legislation in some way before it is passed into law.
ReplyDeleteI consider legislative success to be the ability of the President to get bills passes that further his agenda, even if it means working in a divided government. I really don't believe that the roll call victories have any significance. Choosing a side on a bill might help the president with votes with his own party, but in todays politically polarized congress, I believe it does very little to convince the opposition to cross party lines. In the long run, the agenda victories are what can constitute a Presidents legacy, and make real change. I think that the presidential veto in a divided government holds enormous power, but I would not say that's its use would constitute a form of success. I believe that success comes more from the ability to communicate effectively withCongress and use compromise, maybe using the threat of the veto power carefully to have congress have the bill more in line with the President's agenda before it even gets to his desk.
ReplyDeleteWhat I consider presidential success is getting those proposals and issues that will benefit the country that were on the president's agenda done. As a candidate the president laid out a list of issues that they wanted to tackle and how they would go about in changing them. However, not all those issues may exactly be dealt by the president in a way that would benefit the country. For example, if a president's agenda involves waging war on a country for reason that would not be of any benefit to anyone and he succeeds in doing so, I would still classify that as a failure because even though they got what they wanted it may not have been for the better. Agenda victories may be a victory for the president and no one else. I would classify a president with good ideas and intentions getting nothing done as a more successful prudent than one with bad ideas and intention getting them all done. As for the presidential veto in divided government I do consider it a success if the president is able to weight of making sure that nothing passes that he doesn't see fit.
ReplyDeleteI think that roll call is relatively useless in determining the presidential success of any given president. As we discussed in class, too many factors can be used to deliberately or accidentally deflate and inflate the roll call success rate of a president. Depending on the president use and participation of roll call, the numbers will appear wildly different, regardless of success.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is impossible to quantitatively determine the success of a presidents legislative efforts. Instead, I think the best approach is to qualitatively analyze the success of agenda legislation, considering all the factors of the political climate at the time of office, including but not limited to assorted variations of divided government.
To me, veto power would not normally be a measure of success. Unless the president goes into office saying his goal is to stop particular groups of legislature, successful vetoes are a prevention of others' successes, rather than a success of one's own.
A president's legislative success should be based upon his political agenda, not roll call victories. When campaigning, he or she puts out an agenda which leads to their election and their priority should be to pass what legislation was presented on the agenda. If the president can implement their agenda, then I would consider it legislative success.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the veto goes, I believe that the veto can be part of legislative success if it is not abused. If a piece of legislation goes through Congress and does not fall into the President's agenda, then I think the President does have the right to deny the bill and look for a better version. As the table showed in class demonstrated, not many bills have been vetoed over the last few terms.
I consider President success through their agenda victories. Their agenda is a list of their personal goals for our country, and if they can get the majority of congress (in this day and age) to support them in that initiative, then it is definitely huge success for them. The presidential candidates during campaigning announce their platforms, before knowing what the majority is in the house and senate. A veto in a divided government is only successful if not overridden by the house and senate. It would be a huge failure for a president to veto legislation that is then overridden. I believe vetoes are a great part of the checks and balances of our system of government.
ReplyDeletePresidential "legislative success" is determined by the level to which the executive works within the confines of the constitution to fulfill his or her promises. It must be stated, however, that legislative output is not always the measuring stick for success. If a conservative candidate runs on the platform of limited government and reduced regulation, then legislative success would be determined by the level to which he/she prevents unnecessary legislation.
ReplyDeleteThe presidential veto is an essential attribute to the American legislative process. A previous student mentioned that the veto should be eradicated because it didnt help foster the growth of the federal government. This is precisely why the veto is needed. Barriers in the legislative process were put into place to prevent the unnecessary growth of the federal government. Less legislation is arguably more beneficial than a surplus of ineffective regulations. The veto is also necessary to prevent against the tyranny of the majority.
I agree with the majority of my class in the view that the President's success is based on agenda victories rather than vetos or roll calls. Though vetos can be an important power for the president and provide the president a strong bargaining chip with Congress in legislation, it is not halting a bill that I would consider a great success. Rather creating and pushing for new legislation is what the president should focus on in relation to legislation. Americans do not focus on a presidential candidates possibility to veto a bill, but rather focus on the agenda policies that they promote.
ReplyDeleteI believe that agenda victories are the most important component in legislative success. It is a tough task to work with a divided congress. This is apparent today. Take a look at policies undergoing the process of becoming a bill, or has already passed as a bill, but still gets a great deal of criticism from the opposition party. President Obama's current initiatives serve as an example. "Obama Care" has been under fire from the Republicans since it was passed. Agenda victories really is the definition of legislative success.
ReplyDeleteAs for the veto, I believe it is a a form of success. It is a way of countering a congressional chamber unwilling to work with the president.
Before a president takes office, the candidate has a list of several proposed agenda assignments in its repertoire that the president believes to be beneficial to the American public. Just that simple fact being stated, I believe agenda victories are substantially the best way to measure legislative success for the president. It’s a two step process for the president. First, the public has to agree with the future presidents proposed legislation and then once in the White House Congress has to agree with the president for the legislation to be passed. If the president has the general public behind his legislation (which is shown by the president getting voted in) and Congress behind his legislation (which is shown by the bill getting passed) then that is true, 100% legislative success.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the use of the veto as any form of success for the president. I really don’t understand its implementation into the executive branch. The office of the presidency was designed to have very, very limited power and the Founders wanted there to be a president in the government to serve as the face of the government (and subsequently take credit for all the good and the bad within the government). When a president tries to veto any proposed legislation that Congress has agreed on, I think it is the presidents right to sign it into law. This is especially true in the case of divided government. The president will just veto anything that goes against its party’s bylaws and will only be looking to maintain a republic United States or a democratic United States instead of a democracy for, by, and of the people of the United States.
I consider a president's "legislative success" to be largely measured more by agenda victories than by the traditional "roll call" vote count. It follows from this logic that I would also believe the presidential veto to be a success. If a president can shape legislative politics in the country, in any way, that is, in my book, a legislative success.
ReplyDeleteOf the six factors Pika and Maltese describe, I find "popular support" and "content of domestic programs" to be most indicative of success. If a president can successfully pass legislation with a tangible domestic effect, he/she has a good lean for reelection and makes his/her party look better for mid-term elections. Not to mention positive effects on the nation via intended legislative agenda.
The definition of legislative success if difficult to define. I define legislative success as the president following through on the commitment he made during his campaign process. The president and his administration set forth an agenda and the amount of that agenda that they complete is how their legislative success. As some of the previous posters have noted, the president does not need to always push through legislative policies to be successful. Say that the president is returning for his second term. Then legislative success could be continuing his previous policies without pushing certain ones forward. While I do not find roll out victories to be important, I think that agenda victories are very important.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of bickering between the conservative and liberal parties is very childish and the veto gives the executive the most power. The veto isn't particularly a good thing because it limits the progress that congress has made. Clearly a majority is needed in congress to pass legislation that will be positive for the country, yet the president has the power to stop it. However, the veto is a powerful tool for the president because it allows him to stop congress from going against his agenda and can be used as a tool to make concessions to push forward items from his agenda.
Personally, I consider presidential success to be based upon how effectively the president is in setting the congressional agenda and using their power / position to push through legislation that both addresses the major problems of the time and is also preventive to any future problems. I don’t think the notion of “roll call” victories is important at all. Using that system to judge presidential success is inherently flawed since presidents can simply be strategic actors to get this number up. It’s not a reflection of how active a President really is in office. While consistently strategic use of the veto power can lead to presidential success it is not an expression of it. If it is used to block potentially harmful pieces of legislation that don’t fulfill a specific need then it will help to lead to presidential success. I don’t agree that the veto power is negative if used correctly in the aforementioned way. When it is used to block genuine, helpful, and necessary legislation is when it becomes a problem.
ReplyDeletePresidential success is the ability for the president to be able to work with congress to enact the policies he wishes to create. The divided government does more harm than good, because neither party will swallow their pride and work with the other to pass legislation. The threats of over stepping congress by way of executive orders or threats of vetoing are ways the president can wake congress up and get them to start doing things because they will realize that the president may go above them. However, when used correctly, veto powers are a prime example of how the balance of power works and that it shows the president is protecting the citizens because he does not feel part of a bill is will benefit the country.
ReplyDeletePresidential success should be measured in the legislative achievements of the administration, which are tangible. It is important to note the important role the president's intangible successes: promoting values (role model) and enhancing the image of the office.
ReplyDeleteRoll call vote victories are unimportant when compared with the agenda victories. While a president can, and will, take a few roll call losses, it is the few that truly matter (the major administration initiatives) that define a presidency.
The presidential veto is an important tool in the president's arsenal. In divided government, it serves as a useful negotiating tool to produce legislation more favorable to the president and his party. It also serves as a check on legislative power, and while the legislative branch ought to be the most powerful branch, there are times when it can become subject to overreach.
One cannot underestimate the importance of the legislative victories that a president seeks to achieve. The President is elected partly on their agenda and their vision for the course of the country. On that very premise, legislative achievements are instrumental to Presidential success. They are surely not definitive by any means. John Kennedy had very limited legislative success, but a major foreign policy victory in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The failure of Vietnam is partly erased by the astonishing legislative victories of Lyndon Johnson.
ReplyDeleteRoll call victories have been made somewhat irrelevant due to how politicians are elected and the significance of their agenda. The veto power is always viewed negatively by me. It is an explicit denial of Congressional will. The FDR model of leadership is the most useful and practical, when both the Executive and Legislative branches can be united together. The veto does serve as a useful bulwark against Congress. While its original purpose has been succeeded by a partisan usage by Presidents, it is a clear reminder of the importance of the President in shifting the course of the country's legislation. In divided government, it served as the most powerful weapon the President can impose toward his benefit.
I think presidential legislative success can be defined by how much of what they set out to do, they were able to accomplish. We all know a large part of how presidents are elected is on the basis what they "promise" to do in office, while they are on the campaign trail. Of course it's easy to make those promises when you're not in office, but it does show what they intend to focus on. I also don't think a presidents legislative success can be determined while they're in office. It's hard to tell at the time how far reaching or prolific their legislation will be and sometimes it can seem as though they were only able accomplish small portions of their goals but from the perspective of history that small amount of legislation can be more significant than expected. The presidential use of the veto power is another way they can wield their legislative power. Their ability to prevent legislation from passing is almost as important as the legislation they try to push through. I think that a presidents use of the veto power can play into how successful or not they were. It's not always a negative thing when it's being used for constructive purposes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the only real way to measure presidential “legislative success” is by looking at the agenda that the President has given. For example, if the President’s agenda includes passing a health care bill, an immigration bill, and an education bill; then his/her success can only be measured by the legislation has has been passed from bill into law. As an illustration, if only the education bill has been passed then the President has only achieved 1/3 legislative success. Also, I think that roll call is very misleading and has become useless because it is a political tool that can be easily misinterpreted or manipulated. Finally, i do not think of the power of the veto as an accurate way of measuring the President’s success. In Conclusion, i believe that the only way to measure the President’s legislative success is by seeing how many items on his/her agenda have gotten accomplished. Namely, passing bills into law.
ReplyDelete