Impact of Lobbying on Credibility of Oval Office: Analytical Essay

With specific reference to the Oval Office, to what degree has this institution been a source of controversy over the past half century?

Over the past 50 years, the US presidency has been involved in several scandals and corruption cases that gave rise to controversy and concerns both within American society and amongst US partners (Meinke, Anderson, 2001). With the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States in November 2016, this phenomenon has become more pronounced. Indeed, the role he played in polemics as well as his sexist behaviour sparked strong reactions from the public opinion and resulted in him ranked the worst president in US history by nearly 200 political scientists (Shugerman, 2018). However, these scandals raise a real problem of consistency with the presidential function. As a matter of fact, one of the main missions of the President of the United States are to act as the symbolic leader of the country as the Chief of State, representing the US population’s interests, and negotiating with other countries as the Chief Diplomat (Bailey, Shafritz, 1988). Therefore, Americans expect popular and powerful presidential leadership able to solve the nation’s issues; instead, they are intrinsically suspicious of ‘strong centralised leadership and the abuse of power’ (Cronin, Genovese, 2004: 4). Furthermore, from an institutional approach, ‘the changes in the ways presidents structured the White House Office; variations in the number, types, and sizes of other agencies within the Executive Office of the President’ has led to an increase in the distrust of citizens toward the US presidency (Blakesley, 1995: 5). That is why this essay argues that, over the past half century, the Oval Office, the symbol of the US Presidency, is an institution that has been the focus of intense controversies. Firstly, the following paper explores how the several political scandals involving the President’s administration affect public opinion. Then, it is shown how the President’s inaction toward bureaucracy and the Congress’ paralysis fosters controversies. Finally, it is examined how the systemic corruption brought on by lobbying destroys the credibility of the Oval Office.

To begin with, it is undeniable that political scandals that involve the Oval Office have a serious negative impact on public opinion which subsequently becomes hostile. This phenomenon is all the more accentuated when the President tries to mask the truth (Kagay, 1999). One of the most controversial affairs of the modern American political scene is the Watergate case. Indeed, President Nixon ordered the intrusion of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C (Kutler, 2010). Although the act itself was bad, it was the ensuing concealment attempted by the Nixon administration that became very infamous, with Nixon’s unwillingness to relay evidence eventually leading to the threat of impeachment and Nixon’s resignation, the only president ever to resign from office (ibid.). Therefore, many searchers have shown that the revelations of the Watergate controversy increased negative evaluations of Nixon, the government, and the presidency (Zimmer, 1979). Another notorious corruption case implicating the US president is the Iran-Contra affair. Indeed, President Reagan’s senior administration officials secretly expedited the arms sales to Iran, and the initiative was further aggravated when funds from the sale of arms were used to fund anti-communist death squads in Nicaragua (Pearce, 1988). Unlike in the Watergate case, there is no evidence that the president tried to block F.B.I. agents from carrying out their mission or commanded witnesses to lie, nonetheless, his administration has been accused of sabotaging the investigation by destroying evidence (Yoo, 2017). Once again, this scandal affects the personality cult around the president. One would think that the number of presidential scandals would decrease over time but, nowadays, President Trump is involved in several cases including the Russiagate. The latter’s campaign team is accused to have interfered in the 2016 election by encouraging Russians to hack US democrats and to discredit Hillary Clinton (Borger, 2017). Moreover, Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, was found guilty of fraud, and, on the day he was convicted, ‘Trump’s former long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in a federal court in New York to […] campaign finance violations for paying hush money to women who allege affairs with Trump in the past’ (Walters, 2018). Therefore, all these facts explain why Trump’s approval rating is at the lowest of his presidency with 60% disapproving of his performance as the US president (ibid.). Consequently, these examples of presidential scandals confirm that the Oval Office has been a source of controversy over the past half century.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

However, presidents, by using ‘partisan presidency’ approach, can maintain a great popularity within their party (Bailey, Shafritz, 1988). Indeed, since 1980, one has witnessed the emergence of this new type of presidency which consists in polarising the electorate along partisan and ideological lines (Skinner, 2008). This resulted in an increasing ‘approval gap’, namely ‘the difference between the approval given to a president by his partisans as opposed to that given by members of the other part’, up to 40 points or more (ibid.: 606). The first elements of partisan presidency emerged under President Reagan who took action to remake the Republican Party in his conservative image and to make it regain its majority status (Galvin, 2013). Indeed, for Skinner, strong parties ‘often serve as cults of personality adoring the occupant of the Oval Office’ (Skinner, 2008: 621). This ‘partisan presidency’ helped Reagan acquire a great popularity within his party and a good approval rate reaching more than 60% at the end of his mandate, thus not reflecting the impact of his controversies on public opinion (Lanoue, 1989). Furthermore, President George W. Bush has brought this partisanship to a new extreme and can be seen as the most partisan US president (Skinner, 2008). Indeed, he is the first president whose approval gap exceeded 70 points and to receive ‘more than 90 percent approval among Republicans, making him one of the most popular presidents ever with his own party’ (ibid.: 611). This can be explained by the fact that Bush ‘maintained a surprising hold over congressional Republicans, especially on the issue of the Iraq War’ that has divided the American public opinion along partisan lines more than any previous conflict in the history (ibid.: 609). Consequently, despite controversies over decisions taken by Bush administration during the Iraq War, the President maintained a good appearance, especially within his political party.

Nevertheless, it is often claimed that one lives in a ‘post-truth’ world, where authorities and facts are no longer trusted, and information is dominated by ‘fake news’ (Mudde, 2018). The latter term refers to ‘the deliberate presentation of (typically) false or misleading claims as news, where the claims are misleading by design’; moreover, this kind of news is masterfully manipulated to reach the widest audience possible often via social networks (Gelfert, 2018: 85-86). As a matter of fact, this phenomenon has become a matter of real controversy since the election campaign of Donald Trump in 2016. Indeed, he ‘ran an entire campaign on fake news’ in which he ‘continually spread rumours [and] false news […] on his Twitter feed and in his campaign speeches (Kellner, 2017: 100). Furthermore, as President of the USA, he still uses fake news to justify his position and actions which is regarded negatively by Americans who ‘consider “fake news” a very serious threat to […] democracy’ (Gallup, 2018: 3). Indeed, President Trump ‘wields the phrase creatively, […] as an adjective to append to individual outlets that offend him and as a weapon with which to diminish confidence in those who hold power to account’ (Edgecliffe-Johnson, 2018). Therefore, this once again demonstrates that the Oval Office is at the heart of major controversies.

Secondly, another issue giving rise to controversy is the president’s inaction towards what is called the ‘congressional paralysis’ but also towards bureaucracy which is perceived as harmful to the societal well-being (Twombly, 2013). First, according to Neustadt, the US presidency has grown weaker against the legislative paralysis gripping Congress (2001). The latter is said to be both a consequence and cause of cross-party, as well as internal party divisions (Gay Stolberg, Shear, 2018). Indeed, the Republicans are clearly disagreeing with both the Democrats and each other over the environment, social questions, and the different degrees of libertarianism that need to be adopted (Agiesta, 2017). In the same way, the Democrats are hardly a homogeneous union of members: in a divisive context of increasing socio-economic inequality, there are both partisans of centre-left and centre-right within the party (ibid.) Therefore, from all this, one can question the existing system and deduce that the Oval Office should adopt a stronger-arm approach when Congress or Senate do not find a consensus on the country’s issues (Bailey, Shafritz, 1988). Unfortunately, a recent relevant example of the president’s inaction towards this congressional paralysis is the ‘Dreamers’ case. As a matter of fact, the failed deal over Dreamers’ future has been at the heart of US government shutdown in January 2018 which has caused many controversies (Gambino, 2018).

Nonetheless, one has to bear in mind that Americans currently live in an era of ‘presidential law-making’ (Love, Garg, 2014). Firstly, it is necessary to explain this term. Although, it seems like a basic notion, it is quite difficult to evaluate ‘where law-making ends and where law execution begins’ (Easterbrook, 1990: 545). According to the Supreme Court, ‘law-making’ describes the activity that Congress cannot perform ‘except in the manner prescribed in the presentment clauses of the Constitution’ (ibid.: 545). However, by defining ‘law-making’ in that way, the Supreme Court implicitly upholds Congress’ capacity ‘to delegate that power to the executive branch’ (ibid.: 545). Therefore, the President is able to participate in the law-making process in several manners (Easterbrook, 1990). Indeed, among others, the President has a veto power over Congress’ decisions; the pardon power which alters the legal rights of people; the power to make treaties subject to congressional concurrence that, under the Constitution, become the law of the land; and, finally, the power not to enforce or defend a statute in the courts, a decision that can practically nullify a law (ibid.). Consequently, regarding the President’s inaction towards the ‘congressional paralysis’, the last point is decisive since one can notice that this inaction may be a deliberate choice which reinforces the Oval Office’s controversial nature.

But one of the most contentious issues concerns the way the President oversees and deals with bureaucracy. At the most elementary level, the latter ‘is defined as rule or government by bureau or department’ (Twombly, 2013: 117). It must be stressed that bureaucracy is very vast in the U.S., indeed, ‘more than 2.5 million people work across the entire executive branch of the US government in hundreds of agencies and commissions’ (West, 2015). This figure can thus explain why Americans are increasingly afraid of both the importance of the ‘bureaucratic state’ and the corruption of government official surrounding the President, as a matter of fact, ‘three out of four Americans feel corruption is “widespread in government”’ (Gingrich, Wise, 2016). Therefore, the American people expect the President to take action on this matter since they ‘fear the abuse of government bureaucracy to serve, not the public will, but to benefit a small group or an individual at their expense’ (Twombly, 2013). However, despite the initiatives taken, one can notice the President’s powerlessness over this issue. Indeed, for Francis Rourke, all the recent efforts made by the Oval Office to establish unilateral control over executive agencies have failed and ‘the idea of total control lies in a field of dreams’ (1993: 690). Consequently, the debate surrounding the American government’s bureaucratic nature once more puts the President at the heart of strong controversies.

Lastly, examining the systemic corruption brought on by lobbying activities is significant when one studies the Oval Office’s corrupt activities. Senator Caraway, in a bill passed by the Senate, defines lobbying as “any effort to influence Congress upon any matter coming before it, whether it be by the distribution of printed matter, appearance before committees of Congress, interviewing or seeking to interview individual members of the Senate or House, or by any other means” (Logan, Patten Fellow, 1929: 1-2). Therefore, yet again, one expects the President to design regulatory tools, without which people remain exposed to the big firms and economic groups’ interests (McKay, 2013). Nevertheless, the opposite situation has occurred with various US Presidents who have tended to increase annual federal spending thus increasing the chances of lobbying (Boaz, 2018). As a matter of fact, the amount of money spent by firms on lobbying severely increased after both President Bush’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill and President Obama’s healthcare reorganisation (McKay, 2013). Furthermore, President Trump has provided a strong support to the NRA, the leader of gun lobby, which has provoked heated reactions and controversies (Beckett, 2018).

However, it is true that most presidents make public announcements in which they pledge to restrict lobbying activities (Maiello, 2009). Indeed, it is known that bribery and lobbying are intertwined even though there are plenty of papers trying to draw the line between corruption and legitimate issue advocacy (ibid.). That is why, during his campaign, Obama repeatedly promised that lobbyists ‘would not run his White House’ and on his first full day as president in 2009, ‘he issued two executive orders and three presidential directives that included strict limits on the work that former lobbyists would be able to do in his administration’ (Wheaton, 2016). Additionally, at the beginning of his term in office, President Trump signed a lifetime foreign-lobbying ban for his administration’s members, but also a five-year ban for all other lobbying (Miller, 2017). Overall, these measures demonstrate the willingness of the Oval Office to ‘drain the swamp of government corruption’ (Kessler, 2017).

Nonetheless, these initiatives are not credible because one can identify several weaknesses in their application. As a matter of fact, Trump’s commitment to eradicate corruption in Washington, D.C. has wavered since he has hired ‘top donors to his campaign for administration jobs, while relying on industry lobbyists for both his transition and administration staff’ (Miller, 2017). Moreover, as a senior administration official confirmed, his five-year ban would not prevent lobbyists from joining the presidential administration, indeed, the ban is ‘not about your past, it’s about your future’ (ibid.). Furthermore, President Obama’s announcement that nobody on the White House staff is allowed to work on issues touching on areas where they had previously worked as lobbyists provoked some controversies because some members of his staff did have some lobbying experience and were obviously best qualified to work in the areas where they worked as lobbyists (Maiello, 2009). For instance, William Corr, who Obama wanted at Health and Human Services, had lobbied for Tobacco Free Kids before (Frates, 2009). In addition, for Harstad and Svensson, the Oval Office’s members are not trustworthy when they promise not to extort bribes ‘because corrupt deals are not enforceable in courts and because firms deal with different officials over time (2011: 46). Consequently, this clearly demonstrates that the Oval Office, the symbol of the US Presidency, is an institution that has been at the heart of strong controversies to this day.

By considering the impact of the several political scandals involving the President’s administration on the public opinion, then how the President’s inaction toward both bureaucracy and the Congress’ paralysis fosters controversies, and, finally, how the systemic corruption brought on by lobbying destroys the credibility of the Oval Office, it therefore seems that the latter is an institution that has been the focus of intense controversies over the past half century. Indeed, history has shown that all US presidents have crossed the line into grey areas or illegal activities sometimes to achieve their personal goals. This raises the question of the extent to which the President respects US democratic values and is not considered a despot. Therefore, it would be of great interest to see if, in the future, the Constitution will be reinforced towards the presidential function in order to better regulate it and minimise the risk of controversy.

References

1. Agiesta, J., (2017). Democrats, Republicans see eye-to-eye on almost nothing, according to an extensive new poll. CNN Politics [Online]. Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/poll-partisans-growing-apart/index.html [Accessed 08/12/18]
2. Bailey, H.A., Shafritz, J.M., (1988). The American presidency: historical and contemporary perspectives. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
3. Beckett, L., (2018). Donald Trump brags of achievements and promises NRA: I'll defend gun rights. The Guardian [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/04/trump-nra-convention-dallas-gun-control [Accessed 12/12/18]
4. Blakesley, L., (1995). Presidential leadership: from Eisenhower to Clinton. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
5. Boaz, D., (2018). How Washington power might corrupt Google. USA Today [Online]. Available from: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/04/google-investing-millions-political-process-cost-doing-business-david-boaz-column/1079715001/ [Accessed 12/12/18]
6. Borger, J., (2017). The Trump-Russia dossier: why its findings grow more significant by the day. The Guardian [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/07/trump-russia-steele-dossier-moscow [Accessed 05/12/18]
7. Cronin, T.E., Genovese, M.A., (2004). The paradoxes of the American presidency 2nd ed., New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Easterbrook, F.H., (1990). Presidential Lawmaking Powers. Washington University Law Quarterly [Online]. 68 (533). Available from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1476&context=journal_articles [Accessed 09/12/18]
9. Edgecliffe-Johnson, A., (2018). Trump, fake news and the seeds of doubt. The Financial Times [Online]. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/213fecde-5896-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0 [Accessed 07/12/18]
10. Frates, C., (2009). Obama HHS deputy has recent lobbyist past. POLITICO [Online]. Available from: https://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-hhs-deputy-has-recent-lobbyist-past-017376 [Accessed 13/12/18]
11. Gallup, (2018). American Views: Trust, Media, and Democracy. Available from: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-fbcc-dcd4-a96b-ffeddf140001 [Accessed 07/12/18]
12. Gambino, L., (2018). Failed deal over Dreamers at the heart of US government shutdown. The Guardian [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/20/government-shutdown-dreamers-immigration-democrats-trump [Accessed 08/12/18]
13. Galvin, D., (2013). Presidential Partisanship Reconsidered: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and the Rise of Polarized Politics. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 46-60. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23563588 [Accessed 06/12/18]
14. Gay Stolberg, S., Shear, M.D., (2018). Senate Rejects Immigration Plans, Leaving Fate of Dreamers Uncertain. The New York Times [Online]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/politics/immigration-senate-dreamers.html [Accessed 08/12/18]
15. Gelfert, A., (2018). Fake News: A Definition. Informal Logic [Online]. 38(1). Available from: https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/5068 [Accessed 07/12/18]
16. Gingrich, N., Wise, B., (2016). The Corrupt Federal Bureaucracy and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Medium [Online]. Available from: https://medium.com/@BrianJWise/the-corrupt-federal-bureaucracy-and-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-c0ede8f3c51 [Accessed 10/12/18]
17. Harstad, B., Svensson, J., (2011). Bribes, Lobbying, and Development. American Political Science Review [Online]. Available from: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/harstad/htm/bl.pdf [Accessed 13/12/18]
18. Kagay, M. (1999). Presidential Address: Public Opinion and Polling During Presidential Scandal and Impeachment. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(3), 449-463. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991722 [Accessed 04/12/18]
19. Kellner, D., (2017). American Horror Show: Election 2016 and the Ascent of Donald J. Trump. Rotterdam: SensePublishers
20. Kessler, G., (2017). Fact Check: Bans on Lobbying. The Washington Post [Online]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-address-to-congress/fact-check-bans-on-lobbying/?utm_term=.cd257c4a7950 [Accessed 12/12/18]
21. Kutler, S.I., (2010). Watergate: a brief history with documents. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
22. Lanoue, D., (1989). The 'Teflon Factor': Ronald Reagan & Comparative Presidential Popularity. Polity [Online] 21(3), 481-501. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3234744 [Accessed 06/12/18]
23. Logan, E.B., Patten Fellow, S.N., (1929). Lobbying. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science [Online]. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1017495 [Accessed 12/12/18]
24. Maiello, M., (2009). Corruption, American Style. Forbes [Online]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/corruption-lobbying-bribes-biz-corruption09-cx_mm_0122maiello.html#7c5215f8224e [Accessed 12/12/18]
25. McKay, D.H., (2013). American Politics and Society. 8th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Meinke, S.R., Anderson, W.D., (2001). Influencing from Impaired Administrations: Presidents, White House Scandals, and Legislative Leadership. Legislative Studies Quarterly [Online]. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/440273 [Accessed 03/12/18]
27. Miller, Z. J., (2017). President Trump Signs 5-Year Lobbying Ban for Administration Officials. Time [Online]. Available from: http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/ [Accessed 12/12/18]
28. Mudde, C., (2018). Why the hysteria around the 'fake news epidemic' is a distraction. The Guardian [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/07/hysteria-fake-news-epidemic-distraction [Accessed 07/12/18]
29. Neustadt, R., (2001). The Weakening White House. British Journal of Political Science [Online]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3F9902FCC3B26360BC90C33268050018/S0007123401000011a.pdf/weakening_white_house.pdf [Accessed 08/12/18]
30. Pearce, J., (1988). The Iran-Contra Affair. Third World Quarterly, 10(1), 361-365. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3992835 [Accessed 04/12/18]
31. Rourke, Francis E. 1993. 'Whose Bureaucracy Is This, Anyway?: Congress, the President and Public Administration,' 23 PS: Political Science & Politics 687-92.
32. Shugerman, E., (2018). Donald Trump ranked worst president in US history by nearly 200 political scientists. The Independent [Online]. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-worst-president-presidential-greatness-survey-presidents-day-obama-george-washington-a8218721.html [Accessed 03/12/18]
33. Skinner, R.M., (2008). George W. Bush and the Partisan Presidency. Political Science Quarterly [Online]. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25655567 [Accessed 06/12/18]
34. Twombly, J., (2013). The Progression of the American Presidency: Individuals, Empire, and Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Walters, J., (2018). Donald Trump's approval rating sinks to lowest of his presidency. The Guardian [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/donald-trump-approval-rating-sinks-to-lowest-of-his-presidency [Accessed 05/12/18]
36. West, W., (2015). US presidents exercise centralized control over the bureaucracy primarily through reactive oversight. LSE US Centre’s Daily Blog [Online]. Available from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/08/10/us-presidents-exercise-centralized-control-over-the-bureaucracy-primarily-through-reactive-oversight/ [Accessed 10/12/18]
37. Wheaton, S., (2016). Obama facing pressure to rip up his lobbyist rules. POLITICO [Online]. Available from: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-lobbying-rules-226958 [Accessed 12/12/18]
38. Yoo, J., (2017). Forget Watergate. Think Iran-Contra. The New York Times [Online]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/opinion/trump-watergate-iran-contra.html [Accessed 05/12/18]
39. Zimmer, T.A., (1979). The Impact of Watergate on the Public’s Trust in People and Confidence in the Mass Media. Social Science Quarterly [Online]. 59(4), 743–752. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42860478 [Accessed 05/12/18]