When the President Speaks…

• Date: 01 December 2011
• Published date: 01 December 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016811423580
• Author: Willard M. Oliver,Joshua Hill,Nancy E. Marion
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review
36(4) 456-469
When the President
ª 2011 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
Speaks . . . : An Analysis of
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016811423580
http://cjr.sagepub.com
Presidential Influence Over
Public Opinion Concerning
the War on Drugs
Willard M. Oliver1, Joshua Hill2, and Nancy E. Marion3
Abstract
The theory of presidential influence over public opinion is used to predict the impact of presidential
rhetoric on the public’s concern regarding drug use as ‘‘the most important problem (MIP) facing the
nation.’’ It is hypothesized that the more attention presidents give to the policy area of drugs in their
state of the union (SOTU) addresses, the more concerned the public becomes with drug use. Using
a time-series regression analysis of data collected from a content analysis of presidents’ SOTU
speeches regressed on the Gallup Poll’s MIP series from 1946 to 2010, the findings suggest that pres-
idential mentions of drugs in the SOTU addresses influence public concern for illicit drugs in
America.
Keywords
crime policy, courts/law, drugs and crime, quantitative methods
One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our gov-
ernment is helping parents confront this problem, with aggressive education, treatment, and law
enforcement.
President G.W. Bush, 2004 State of the Union
Although presidential activity in the war on drugs is often considered a late 20th-century policy
issue, presidents have been wrestling with the drug issue for over 100 years, beginning with the pas-
sage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 and the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914 (Courtwright,
2001; Friedman, 1993; Jonnes, 1996). Scholarship related to drug policy argues that Nixon was the
first to launch a war on drugs and that after a brief hiatus during the Carter years, President Reagan
1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA
2University of New Haven, New Haven, CT, USA
3University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Willard M. Oliver, Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice, PO Box 2296, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA
Email: woliver@shsu.edu

---

Oliver et al.
457
reignited that war in the mid-1980s, which then became the primary focus of his successor George
H. W. Bush (Baum, 1996; Bertram, Blachman, Sharpe, & Andreas, 1996; Goode, 1997; Jonnes,
1996; Walker, 2006). Although presidents Clinton, Bush (II), and Obama have been less closely
associated with drug policy, all three have in fact made at least some concerted effort to address the
problem of illicit drugs in America (Whitford & Yates, 2009).
In addressing the drug policy issue, presidents, as they do in all other policy areas (Light, 1998),
attempt to influence both the public and the Congress in order to obtain legislative success through
the passage of new laws (LeLoup & Shull, 2002). Influencing public opinion generates a feedback
loop that allows them to be more successful in pushing their desired legislation through Congress
(Cohen, 1995, 1997; Hinckley, 1990). When the president has public opinion in his favor, he is
provided with the necessary leverage to enable Congress to pass those bills supported by his admin-
istration. It should be noted, however, that a president can only address so many issues at any given
time and he must choose what is going to be part of his policy agenda and, as a matter of course, what
is not. Understanding the nature of the presidential agenda and how presidents influence public opin-
ion is thus important for understanding the public policy process, in this case as it specifically relates
to a president’s attention to the issue of illicit drugs.
It is generally well accepted that the best means for assessing the president’s policy agenda is
through the annual State of the Union (SOTU) address (Cohen, 1995, 1997; Kessel, 1974; Light,
1998). The SOTU message to Congress is mandated by Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution
which states, ‘‘He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union,
and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’’
Although Presidents Washington and Adams orally delivered their addresses to Congress, Jefferson
began the long-held tradition of delivering a written message. It was Wilson who broke with Jeffer-
sonian tradition by returning to the oral message, delivered before a joint session of Congress, which
is today a nationally televised event. This speech typically highlights the president’s accomplish-
ments over the previous year and highlights his policy agenda for the next year. Because of this fact,
only important issues at the top of the president’s agenda will make their way into the speech. Fur-
ther, because of the access presidents are given to the American public with this speech, it is argued
that not only does it allow the public to understand the president’s policy agenda, but it also provides
a means by which the president can influence public opinion regarding key policy issues (Cohen,
1995, 1997; Kessel, 1974; Light, 1998).
The theory that presidents influence public opinion has been widely used in the public policy field
and to a lesser degree in the criminal justice field (Cohen, 1995, 1997; Edwards, 1983; Edwards &
Wood, 1999; Light, 1998; Oliver, 1998, 2002, 2003). The research has consistently demonstrated
that presidents do have the ability to influence the public on a wide array of issues, including the
issue of crime. One of these studies (Oliver, 2002), in particular, demonstrated significant findings
in a president’s ability to influence public opinion of crime through the use of the SOTU address.
When it comes to the issue of illicit drugs, however, the research appears to be more mixed.
There is some evidence to suggest that presidents do influence public opinion on the subject of
illicit drugs as found by Hawdon (2001) and Oliver (2002). Hawdon (2001) found that Reagan used
communitarian arguments to influence the public, creating a moral panic, which by the Bush presi-
dency had effectively runs its course. The latter research (Oliver, 2002) found that presidents do
influence public opinion; however, drugs were aggregated with drugs in the model making the spe-
cific effect of presidents on public opinion of drugs unclear. Two researchers, Whitford and Yates,
have opened a line of research assessing presidential rhetoric and the public agenda suggesting that
presidents influence public opinion of drugs, but their research is more focused on a president’s abil-
ity to influence the bureaucracy dedicated to the war on drugs and only assumes presidential influ-
ence over public opinion (Whitford, 2002; Whitford & Yates, 2003, 2009; Yates & Whitford, 2005).
Two other empirical studies that test the relationship of presidential influence on public opinion of

---

458
Criminal Justice Review 36(4)
drugs, however, suggest that presidents exhibit no influence (Gonzenbach, 1992, 1996; Hill, Oliver,
& Marion, 2010). This raises the question as to whether the American presidency has the ability,
when it comes to the issue of drugs, to influence public opinion in support of the theory of presiden-
tial influence.
In light of the fact that there is only limited research in the area of presidential influence over
public opinion on the issue of illicit drugs, and that the findings to date are mixed, this study pro-
poses to test the hypothesis in a different manner. By building on previous research that assessed
the presidents’ agendas through their SOTU addresses (Oliver, 2002), this study proposes to test the
hypothesis that presidents influence public opinion of drugs by looking at the influence presidential
mentions of drugs in their SOTU speeches have on the public’s perception that drugs are the most
important problem (MIP) facing the nation.
Presidential Influence
There is an extensive and continually growing body of literature that deals with a president’s ability
to influence public opinion. The research typically falls into two categories (Cohen, 1995). The first
category focuses on the presidential ability to manipulate his public approval ratings by engaging in
such activities as foreign trips and delivering national addresses to the American people (Brace &
Hinckley, 1992; Hinckley, 1990; Kernell, 2006; Ostrom & Simon, 1985, 1988, 1989; Ragsdale,
1984, 1987). The second category focuses on the presidential capacity to lead public opinion by
advocating specific policy issues (Cohen, 1995; Edwards & Wood, 1999; Gelderman, 1995; Graber,
1982; Kernell, 2006).
There are exceptions to a president’s ability to influence public opinion. Research suggests
that popular presidents can influence public opinion (Edwards, 1983; Edwards & Wood, 1999;
Page & Shapiro, 1984, 1992), while unpopular presidents cannot (Page & Shapiro, 1984, 1992;
Page, Shapiro, & Dempsey, 1987). Others have simply found no qualifying differences at all
(Cohen, 1995, 1997). The policy area itself can also have an impact on presidential influence, for
despite strong efforts on their part, sometimes policies do not resonate with the public or achieve
legislative success (e.g., Carter and energy policy or Clinton and health care policy). Research also
suggests that the media (Edwards & Wood, 1999; Wood & Peake, 1998) and the economy (Cohen,
1995, 1997) can play an intervening role in influencing the public, as will the election cycle (Yates &
Whitford, 2005).
In the criminal justice public...