Unilateral Inaction: Congressional Gridlock, Interbranch Conflict, and Public Evaluations of Executive Power

Abstract

Presidents routinely overpromise and underdeliver, especially amid partisan polarization, narrow congressional majorities, and persistent gridlock. As Congress routinely stymies their legislative agendas, presidents consider alternative courses of action. We study public reactions to unilateral power in the context of congressional inaction. While some research suggests that presidents cannot afford to pass up opportunities to act, more recent scholarship indicates that the public holds negative views of unilateral power and disapproves of its use. Survey experiments conducted with a national sample of Americans provide evidence of the costs of unilateral power. Across three policy areas and between‐ and within‐respondent analyses, the public responds negatively when presidents exercise unilateral power rather than accept the status quo, even among individuals who share the president's policy views. Our results suggest that while legislative gridlock may increase the appeal of unilateral power, its use may come at a public cost.

Acting(s) without consequence: The (lack of) public costs for vacancies and acting officials

“…21 By contrast, mal-intent by members of Congress, such as placing senatorial holds on nominees en masse, could create conditions under which presidents must utilize actings to keep the government running. While Reeves and Rogowski (2022b) find the public sanctions presidents for using unilateral directives even when congressional inaction prevents legislative action, citizens may be more understanding of presidents' use of actings in the face of congressional mal-intent because the public is more supportive of unilateralism within the executive branch (Reeves & Rogowski, 2022a, pp. 49-56) and, so long as presidents have made nominations, Congress's inaction itself causes unilateralism as the status quo.…”

Public Responses to Unilateral Policymaking

“…Other work though emphasizes the role of the public. In a series of studies, Reeves and Rogowski (2016, 2018, 2022a, 2022b and Christenson and Kriner (2017a, 2017b) investigate individual-level determinants of public support for unilateralism. There is an emerging consensus that the public checks presidential unilateralism.…”