Not All Crime Policies Are Created Equal

• Author: Joshua B. Hill,Willard M. Oliver,Nancy E. Marion
• Published date: 01 June 2016
• Date: 01 June 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403414549208
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2016, Vol. 27(4) 331 –347

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414549208

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

Not All Crime Policies Are

Created Equal: Presidential

Speeches and Symbolic

Rhetoric by Crime Policy

Types

Willard M. Oliver1, Nancy E. Marion2,

and Joshua B. Hill3

Abstract

Previous research suggests that American presidents resort to the use of symbolic

rhetoric because of public opinion, party affiliation, election year politics, and divided

government. This research, however, treated crime policy as a general topic,

disregarding the nuances that emerge from different types of crime policies. The

research at hand posits not all crime policies are the same or handled the same

politically, and thus divides them into seven crime policy categories: law enforcement,

courts, corrections, juveniles, guns, death penalty, and drugs. Drawing upon the theory

of symbolic rhetoric and categorizing presidential speeches from 1948 through 2010

into these seven categories, this study employs logistic regression to explain the

influencing variables upon the likelihood presidents will employ symbolic rhetoric for

each of these crime policy types. Findings suggest that although the use of symbolic

rhetoric is different for each crime policy issue, there are two key factors that matter

overall: divided government and party affiliation.

Keywords

criminal justice policy, symbolic politics, presidents

1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

2University of Akron, OH, USA

3Tiffin University, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Willard M. Oliver, Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 2296, Huntsville,

TX 77341, USA.

Email: woliver@shsu.edu

549208CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414549208Criminal Justice Policy ReviewOliver et al.

research-article2014

332 Criminal Justice Policy Review 27(4)

The first American president to engage in the issue of crime policy was Herbert Hoover

(Calder, 1993, 2013), yet crime policy did not become a perennial issue for American

presidents until the Johnson/Goldwater debates in 1964 (Beckett & Sasson, 2000;

Caplan, 1973; Cronin, Cronin, & Milakovich, 1981; Finckenauer, 1978; Marion,

1994a, 2011; Scheingold, 1984, 1991, 1995). Since then, crime policy has become a

fixed part of the American presidents’ agenda, and just as scholars speak of the envi-

ronmental (Daynes & Sussman, 2010; Soden, 1999) or economic presidencies (Dolan,

Frendreis, & Tatalovich, 2007), there also appears to exist a law and order presidency

(Oliver, 2003). Yet, it has been noted that not all presidents have focused on the same

issues (Marion, 1994a, 2011). Johnson dedicated his administration to responding to

the problems of street crime and riots (Flamm, 2007; Scruggs, 1980). Other presidents

have focused on juvenile issues (Ford), drugs (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I), and homeland

security (Bush II). Yet, since the Johnson Administration, American presidents have

consistently used their political capital to influence both the public and Congress to

obtain legislative victory in the area of crime policy.

The primary means by which presidents engage the public and Congress on crime

policy, or any policy for that matter, is through the power of speech (Cohen, 1997;

Light, 1998), or, as President Theodore Roosevelt referred to it, the power of the Bully

Pulpit (Ellis, 1998; Goodwin, 2013; Strock, 2003). In more modern times, this power

of speech has been called the Rhetorical Presidency and there is a wide-ranging body

of research assessing the presidents’ ability to influence the public and Congress

through this medium (Ceaser, 1985; Ceaser, Thurow, Tulis, & Bessette, 1981; Cohen,

1997; Kernell, 2006; Light, 1998; Medhurst, 1996; Tulis, 1988). The primary method

for assessing the rhetorical presidency has been through analyses of presidential

speeches, assessing a president’s use of substantive or symbolic speechmaking. In

substantive policy making speeches, presidents offer tangible policy solutions, admin-

istrative and economic commitments, or guidance to bureaucratic agencies (Hinckley,

1990; Marion, 1994a). In symbolic political speeches, presidents use rhetoric “in

which the specific object referred to conveys a larger range of meaning, typically with

emotional, moral, or psychological impact” (Hinckley, 1990, p. 7). As Hinckley (1990)

points out, “this larger meaning need not be independently or factually true, but will

tap ideas people want to believe in as true” (p. 7). It should also be noted that often

presidents will mix their substantive policy speeches with symbolic references, but

rarely does it work the other way (Hinckley, 1990).

A growing body of research has also found that presidents, since at least Hoover,

have employed symbolic rhetoric when it comes to the topic of crime policy (Calder,

1993). Whether on the campaign trail (Marion & Farmer, 2003; Marion & Oliver,

2011), in their budgetary requests to Congress (Caldeira, 1983; Caldeira & Cowart,

1980; Oliver & Marion, 2006, 2009), or through their executive orders (Oliver, 2001),

presidents engage in symbolic rhetoric when it comes to the issue of crime. One recent

study explains why presidents resort to entirely symbolic rhetoric in their crime policy

speeches, and findings suggest that it is when public concern for crime rises, during

presidential election years, that Democrats will use it to undercut the Republican

“hold” on the crime issue, and when government is divided, that is, when the political