Presidents,
Parties, and
Interest Groups
Presidents and
Political Parties




Presidential leadership depends on the
president’s ability to mobilize support for
policies and programs.
A potential major source of influence for
the president is his ability to count on
support from supportive party
constituencies and interest groups.
The president must establish a base of
support to have any chance of success in
office.
A natural source of support is the
president’s own partisans and naturally
supportive interest groups.
Consider a historical perspective on potential presidential
support. Here is a graph of party control of the House, Senate,
and Presidency from 1855.



However, presidents cannot always count
on support from their own partisans.
A classic example is Clinton’s support for
NAFTA in 1994 when the president
mobilized support from the Republican
side to overcome a Democratic party
majority, labor unions, and others who
opposed the bill. Another example, is
George W. Bush’s bank bailout in 2007.
He got insufficient Republican support
and had to rely on Democrats.
Consider the following more systematic
analysis.


The graphs suggest that presidents
can count on support from their own
partisans in Congress about 2/3 of
the time.
Indeed, political parties and interest
groups can impede presidential
leadership efforts when they view
things from a different perspective.
Thus, Bill Clinton in 1994 was not
successful in pressing the issue of
health care reform, despite the fact
that large majorities of Americans
favored reform. Partisan and group
interests mobilized against the
president’s plan.
Perspectives on
Political Parties





In the previous lecture we
discussed the importance of parties
to selecting the president.
We noted that parties emerged by
1800 in response to greater
suffrage rights for Americans.
Parties evolved as communication
and patronage mechanisms for
electing the president.
They were and are very broad
aggregations of interests intended
to capture the election.
The “Downsian” view is that
political parties manipulate their
policy positions in a policy space in
order to win elections.
Figure 2.1: The Centrist Model and Citizen Preferences
1.0
0.5
Left Party Ideal Point
0.0
Likelihood
1.5
Median Voter
0.0
0.2
0.4
Right Party Ideal Point
0.6
0.8
Public Issue Preferences (Liberal-Conservative)
1.0


Political parties are broader
representation mechanisms than
interest groups.
However, both parties and interest
groups can both be viewed as
primarily self interested entities with
goals that are inconsistent with the
national interest.
Presidential
Leadership of Parties


An incumbent president represents broad
diverse interests. A question in
democratic theory concerns whether the
president just represents those who
elected him, or the interests of the nation
at large.
Regardless of the president’s role in
democratic representation, the president
always desires to have party support.
Party support is a resource for success in
government.




An incumbent president is usually
viewed as symbolic leader of his
political party. The non-incumbent
party is typically leaderless during the
period of non-incumbency. Various
people vie for the title of party leader,
but none typically succeeds. Who is
the current leader of the Republican
party?
While the president is leader of his
political party, there are obstacles to
presidential leadership.
Party discipline is difficult to enforce
due to changes in the party system
that we discussed last week.
Presidents are not beholding the
party for their election. Likewise,
members of Congress are generally
on their own in getting election.
Ours is not a responsible party
system as occurs in Europe as shown
by the earlier graphs.



Presidents and their parties also have
different organizational needs.
Presidents seek loyalty to their
administration, while parties want to
disperse benefits across their diverse
constituencies.
Presidents and their parties may also
have different temporal horizons.
Parties last for many decades, while
presidents serve only 4 or 8 years.
As noted earlier, through time there
have been various reforms that have
weakened the influence of political
parties and the president’s ability to
lead. These include:
– Party reforms and resulting
primary elections.
– Candidate centered elections.
– Campaign finance limitations.

Other changes weakening
presidential influence over parties
relate to changes in Congress.
– Weakening of the reward system in
Congress and the decline of seniority.
Party leaders are elected in caucus.
– The evolution of subcommittee
government and the dispersion of power
in Congress. Congress has become
increasingly fragmented by the evolution
of subcommittee government. The
president’s program is now subject to
more cross-cutting influences in Congress.
Multiple committees responsible for most
policies.
– Increased number of roll call votes due to
electronic voting makes position taking
more visible and subject to constituent
scrutiny. Higher visibility for voting
decisions. Opening of committee
hearings to the public have also increased
visibility.
– Newer breed of legislators are less
susceptible to leadership. AntiWashington in their outlook.


While presidential leadership is not
assured, the president does bring
some assets to the game.
Presidential coat-tail effects can
produce those who are beholding to
the president. Thus, sometimes
presidents campaign for other elected
officials. This is not always effective.




Having the ear of the president can
build prestige and standing among
partisans. Thus, presidents issue
invitations, hold meetings with, and
manipulate symbols.
Case work is also an important
advantage for the presidency.
More broadly, presidential visibility
can affect the image of the party for
many years to come.
Presidents typically share beliefs with
members of their own party, and this
engenders loyalty through rhetoric



While patronage such as existed in
the 19th century is gone, presidents
do have some control of political
appointments and federal jobs.
Presidents also raise money for the
political parties through public
appearances and appeals.
Presidents also influence the party
organization. Usually select the chair
of the party organization. May also
influence party platforms and rules.
The President and
Interest Groups




Interest group: A group with a
common interest that seeks to
influence government.
Pluralism: The growth of interest
groups prevents the concentration of
excessive power in the hands of few,
and thus enhances democracy.
During the 19th century most interest
groups turned their attention to the
center of gravity of the political
system which was congress.
Until the 1960s, the number of
interest groups that were influential
in Washington was small. Major
interests were represented such as
agriculture, business, and organized
labor. Indeed, one can track the
expansion of government from the
19th century as a function of group
interests.




With few interest groups, the
president could oppose interest group
positions on one issue, but curry
favor by supporting them on others.
Interest group politics was one of
negotiation and compromise.
Beginning in the 1960s and
expanding in the 1970s, the number
of interest groups operating in
Washington exploded.
Many of the new groups were single
issue groups, and compromise
became difficult.
After the rise in the number of
interest groups, coalition building,
negotiation, and compromise became
much more complex and difficult.
Reasons for Growth
of Interest Groups




Tocqueville saw early on that
Americans had a propensity for
joining groups.
Economic development and quality of
life concerns. In the 1960s people
became a lot more concerned with
the environment, worker safety,
consumer protection, etc. Perhaps a
post-modernist revolution. Prior to
this people just wanted to eek out a
living.
Diversity of population. We have
countless social, racial, economic and
geographic groups.
Government policies. Whenever
government creates an agency, it
creates an entry point for interest
groups. Iron triangles and
subsystems.



Diffusion of power in government.
Political power is shared by many
which leads to plenty of places in
which a group can argue its case.
The more places there are to
influence policy, the more
organizations there will be to exercise
that influence.
Weaknesses of political parties- when
parties are unable to get things done,
interest groups have filled the power
vacuum.
Campaign finance reforms of the
1970's have opened up and brought
out into the open the lobbying
process. Prior to 1974 it was illegal
for corporations to donate money to
candidates for federal office. The
FECA enacted reforms that changed
this by allowing corporations and
groups to form independent bodies
called Political Action Committees
(PACs) that could donate money to
candidates. PACS became among the
most important group influences in
Washington.
Corporate Political Action Committees
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1974- 1975- 1977- 1979- 1981- 1983- 1985- 1987- 1989- 1991- 1993- 1995- 1997- 1999- 200175
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98 2000 2002
Total Political Action Committees
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1974- 1975- 1977- 1979- 1981- 1983- 1985- 1987- 1989- 1991- 1993- 1995- 1997- 1999- 200175 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000 2002



Reaction of conservative and business
groups to what they saw as the
excesses of liberal activism of the
1960's and 1970's
Interest groups tend to beget interest
groups.
Technology.
Presidential
Relations with
Interest Groups


With the decline of parties, presidents
need interest group support to get
elected.
– Money (go back to FEC reports on
Political Money Line or
http://www.opensecrets.org/indust
ries/index.php )
– Organizational support
– Mobilization of faithful (the
Christian Right, the NRA, etc.)
With the decline of parties, presidents
also need interest group support for
governing.





Yet, governing has become more
difficult with the proliferation of
interest groups.
In our system it is easier to block
action than to take action.
Decentralization of Congress and
decline of seniority and movement to
subcommittee, rather than committee
government makes blocking action
easier.
The proliferation of interest groups
has made policy making more
complex as policy makers attempt to
satisfy more cross-cutting interests.
The proliferation of interest groups
has taxed the system, as more and
more groups seek a piece of the pie.


The rise of ideologically motivated
groups has made compromise less
feasible and increased conflict in the
system.
It is now harder to build coalitions
than in earlier times, because of the
increased number of groups, as well
as polarization.


Traditionally, interest groups sought
influence through Congress and its
committees and subcommittees.
However, with increasing
centralization of power to the
presidency, interest groups also
attempt to influence the White
House.
– The president is a centralizing force in
public policy making.
– Through the OMB, the president exercises
central clearance of new policy proposals
coming from the bureaucracy.
– The president has the first move in
budgeting.
– Through the Office of Information and
Regulatory Assessment in the OMB, the
president has substantial influence over
new regulations.
– Through political appointments and
staffing the president can shape policy
implementation.




Thus, the relationship between the
president and interest groups is
mutually endogenous. Groups seek
influence through the presidency. And
presidents seek influence and support
from interest groups.
Presidents need group support and
use various strategies to obtain it.
Modern presidents interact more with
the leadership of interest groups. It is
not uncommon for group leaders to
visit or spend time at the White
House.
Presidents give speeches before
meetings of interest groups.



Presidents from Nixon through George W.
Bush maintained an office in the White House
for the purpose of liason with interest groups.
It was called the Office of Public Liason.
The Office of Public Liason was intended to
provide an institutional mechanism for the
president to reach out to interest groups, as
well as allow access to the president.
However, Barack Obama Barack Obama
resolutely refused during the 2008 election
campaign to accept contributions from
lobbyists and PACs. His campaign was not
funded by interest groups or political action
committees, but contributions from ordinary
citizens.
He did away with the Office of Public Liason,
creating a new Office of Public Engagement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Pre
sident-Obama-Launches-Office-of-PublicEngagement
