Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda: Constructing the War on Drugs

I will try to keep this shameless plug as brief as possible - my new book (with co-author Andrew Whitford) is now available (at Amazon or on the Johns Hopkins University Press site).

 Wait, don't hurt your mouse-hand clicking through too quickly - you might want to check out some of the ad copy below the fold before taking out your credit card  :-)

Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda

Constructing the War on Drugs
Andrew B. Whitford and Jeff Yates

The bully pulpit is one of the modern president's most powerful tools -- and one of the most elusive to measure. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda uses the war on drugs as a case study to explore whether and how a president's public statements affect the formation and carrying out of policy in the United States.

When in June 1971 President Richard M. Nixon initiated the modern war on drugs, he did so with rhetorical flourish and force, setting in motion a federal policy that has been largely followed for more than three decades. Using qualitative and quantitative measurements, Andrew B. Whitford and Jeff Yates examine presidential proclamations about battling illicit drug use and their effect on the enforcement of anti—drug laws at the national, state, and local level. They analyze specific pronouncements and the social and political contexts in which they are made; examine the relationship between presidential leadership in the war on drugs and the policy agenda of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Attorneys; and assess how closely a president's drug policy is implemented in local jurisdictions. 

In evaluating the data, this sophisticated study of presidential leadership shows clearly that with careful consideration of issues and pronouncements a president can effectively harness the bully pulpit to drive policy.

"Original and important. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda is a well—conceived contribution to the literature on the rhetorical presidency and bureaucratic action." -- Andrew Rudalevige, Dickinson College

"President Nixon announced the war on drugs forty years ago this year, andNew York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently wrote that 'it appears that drugs have won.' In their careful analysis in this important book, Whitford and Yates demonstrate that the rhetoric of presidents can influence the course of public policy, particularly including implementation. Words matter, even in the supposedly technical aspects of policy implementation, and they do so in a way that frames and, yes, 'constructs' the policy itself." -- Bryan D. Jones, The University of Texas at Austin

"Whitford and Yates make a strong case for the proposition that presidents can, and do, use public rhetoric to affect how policy is implemented by executive agencies. Whereas most previous studies of presidential rhetoric have focused on appeals made to the mass public, they focus on the effects of public speeches on field agents charged with implementing policy. That such an effect might exist is not obvious. Nonetheless, their argument is nuanced and well—crafted and their evidence -- both qualitative and quantitative -- is compelling. The end result is a thought—provoking study that challenges standard views of executive power. I have no doubt that this book will become required reading for all students of the presidency and the bureaucracy." -- Kevin Quinn, Harvard University

Comments

[viagra online]

If Obama wins the election, will he do anything about the War on Drugs?
Nobody talks about the War on Drugs anymore, especially those who may have the power to change it. Do you think, if Obama wins, he will do anything to make the War on Drugs less about getting people arrested and making money for prisons and more about education and harm reduction? Ralph Nader says Joe Biden has a hell of a pro-Drug War record, which doesn't seem hopeful. Why isn't the Drug War a good debate point anymore? Is it because it benefits both parties too much?