Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:12:56.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Department Secretaries Really a President's Natural Enemies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Graham K. Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is widely believed that there exists in the United States a phenomenon called ‘clientelism’: that most federal government departments in the USA do not really control the interests with whom they do business but rather are controlled by them; that the interests and the departments between them typically have great influence over the department secretaries appointed by the president; and that in consequence a department secretary is, in reality, more likely to act as the interests' spokesman, or as his department's, than as the spokesman of the president. Thus it is often asserted that ‘cabinet officers are a president's natural enemies’. My aim in this article is to show that this belief, as it relates to the relationship between department secretaries and presidents, is widely held, plausible, but mistaken.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1977 , pp. 273 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951), p. 406.Google Scholar

2 Fenno, Richard Jr., The President's Cabinet (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Vile, M. J. C., Politics in the USA (London: Hutchinson, 1976), p. 199.Google Scholar

4 Denenberg, R. V., Understanding American Politics (London: Fontana/Collins, 1976).Google Scholar

5 Rossiter, Clinton, The American Presidency (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1960), p. 59, emphasis added.Google Scholar

6 Neustadt, Richard E., Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (New York: Wiley, 1960), p. 40.Google Scholar

7 Burns, James MacGregor, Presidential Government: The Crucible of Leadership (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p. 127, emphasis added.Google Scholar

8 Hargrove, Erwin C., The Power of the Modern Presidency (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), p. 238.Google Scholar

9 Cronin, Thomas E., The State of the Presidency (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1975), p. 191, emphasis added.Google Scholar

10 Nathan, Richard, The Plot that Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency (New York: Wiley, 1975), p. 41.Google Scholar

11 Seidman, Harold, Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 107.Google Scholar

12 Quoted by Truman, in The Governmental Process, p. 407.Google Scholar

13 Sorensen, Theodore C., Decision-making in the White House: The Olive Branch or the Arrows (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 68, emphasis added.Google Scholar

14 Williams, P. M., Crisis and Compromise: Politics in the Fourth Republic (London: Longmans, Green, 1964), p. 342.Google Scholar

15 LaPalombara, Joseph, Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964), esp. Chaps. XVIII and IX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Heclo, Hugh and Wildavsky, Aaron, The Private Government of Public Money (London: Macmillan, 1973), passim.Google Scholar

17 Key, V. O., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (New York: Crowell, 1952)Google Scholar, Truman, , The Governmental ProcessGoogle Scholar and Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

18 Truman, , The Governmental Process, pp. 404–10.Google Scholar

19 Fenno, Richard Jr., Congressmen in Committees (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1973), p. 5.Google Scholar

20 Jones, C. O., ‘The Agriculture Committee and the Problem of Representation’, American Political Science Review, LV (1961), 358–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Yarmolinsky, Adam, The Military Establishment (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 38 ff.Google Scholar

22 Truman, , The Governmental Process, p. 406.Google Scholar

23 Gilmour, R. S., ‘Central Clearance: A Revised Perspective’, Public Administration Review, XXXI (1971), 150–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 89th Congress 2nd Session, Committee on Agriculture, Serial MM, Legislative Policy of the Bureau of the Budget.

25 Fenno, , Congressmen in Committees, p. 253.Google Scholar

26 Cronin, , ‘Presidents as Chief Executives’, p. 190.Google Scholar

27 A more detailed study by the author of agricultural subsidy politics in Britain and the USA, Special Interests and Policymaking: Agricultural Policies and Politics in Britain and the United States of America, 1956–70, is to be published by John Wiley later in 1977.

28 United States Senate, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 89th Congress 1st Session, Farm Programs and Dynamic Forces in Agriculture (prepared by the Legislative Reference Section of the Library of Congress); Tweeten, Luther, Heady, Earl G. and Mayer, Les U., ‘Farm Program Alternatives, Farm Incomes and Public Costs under Alternative Commodity Programs’, Iowa State University, CAED Report 18, n.d.Google Scholar

29 Schultze, Charles, The Distribution of Farm Subsidies: Who Gets the Benefits? (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Staff Paper, 1971).Google Scholar

30 Lowi, Theodore, ‘Agriculture's Subgovernments’, The Reporter, 21 05 1964Google Scholar, and ‘How the Farmers Get What They Want’, in Anderson, John L., ed., The Politics of Economic Policy (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970).Google Scholar

31 For a compelling statement of this view, vide Johnson, D. Gale, World Agriculture in Disarray (London: Fontana World Economic Issues, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Galbraith, J. K., ‘Economic Preconceptions and Farm Policy’, American Economic Review, XLIV (1954), 40–52.Google Scholar

33 See Crampton, J. A., The National Farmers' Union: Ideology of a Pressure Group (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965), esp. p. 59Google Scholar; Rohwer, Robert A., ‘Organized Farmers in Oklahoma’, Rural Sociology, XVII (1952), 30–6Google Scholar; Morrison, D. E. and Warner, W. Keith ‘Correlates of Farmers' Attitudes Towards Public and Private Aspects of Agricultural Organizations’, Rural Sociology, XXXVI (1971), 5–19Google Scholar; Morrison, Denton E. and Streves, Allan D., ‘Deprivation, Discontent and Social Movement Participation: Evidence on a Contemporary Farmers' Movement, the NFO’, Rural Sociology, XXXVI (1967), 414–34.Google Scholar

34 Olson, Mancur Jr, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

35 Mayhew, D. R., Party Loyalty Among Congressmen (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Bolling, Richard, House Out of Order (New York: Dutton, 1965), p. 96.Google Scholar

37 Mayhew, , Party Loyalty.Google Scholar

38 For an excellent account of Kennedy's farm programme, see Hadwiger, Don F. and Talbot, Ross B., Pressures and Protests: The Kennedy Farm Program and the Wheat Referendum of 1963 (San Francisco: Chandler, 1965).Google Scholar

39 ‘The Political Impasse in Farm Support Legislation’, Yale Law Journal, LXXI (1962), 963–72.Google Scholar

40 Price, Douglas, ‘The Electoral Arena’ in Truman, David B., ed., The Congress and America's Future, 2nd edn. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973).Google Scholar

41 Turner, Julius, Party and Constituency (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957), p. 64 and passim.Google Scholar

42 Benson, Ezra Taft, Cross Fire: The Eight Years with Eisenhower (New York: Doubleday, 1962), p. 58.Google Scholar See also Benson, Ezra Taft, Freedom to Farm (New York: Doubleday, 1962).Google Scholar

43 Novak, Robert, Wall Street Journal, 29 09 1960.Google Scholar

44 Washington Post, 18 12 1963Google Scholar; Wall Street Journal, 17 01 1904Google Scholar; Hadwiger, and Talbot, , Pressures and Protests, p. 216.Google Scholar

45 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 14 03 1958.Google Scholar

46 Key, V. O., The Responsible Electorate (New York: Vintage Books, 1966), p. 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Hadwiger, and Talbot, , Pressures and Protests, p. 29.Google Scholar

48 Mann, Dean and Doig, James W., The Assistant Secretaries: Problems and Processes of Appointment (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1965), p. 49.Google Scholar

49 Mann, and Doig, , The Assistant Secretaries, p. 50.Google Scholar

50 Talbot, Ross B., ‘The North Dakota Farmers' Union and North Dakota Polities’, Western Political Quarterly, X (1957), 875–901.Google Scholar

51 The Republican Minority Leader, Charles Hallek, read out a letter from the New York Democrat, Otis Pike, to his constituents complaining of threats not to provide a new Post Office for his district during the debates on the 1962 Act. Congressional Record, 108, pt. 8, col. 11342.Google Scholar

52 Hardin, Charles M., The Politics of Agriculture: Soil Conservation and the Struggle for Power in Rural America (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1952).Google Scholar

53 Goulden, Joseph C., Meany (New York: Atheneum, 1972), p. 303.Google Scholar

54 New York Times, 8 11 1974.Google Scholar

55 Domhoff, G. William, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967).Google Scholar

56 Mann, and Doig, , The Assistant Secretaries, p. 54.Google Scholar

57 Goulden, , Meany, p. 429.Google Scholar

58 Raymond, Jack, ‘The McNamara Monarchy’ in Ambrose, Stephen E. and Barber, James Alden, eds., The Military and American Society: Essays and Readings (New York: Free Press, 1972), esp. p. 228.Google Scholar

59 Yarmolinsky, , The Military Establishment, p. 36.Google Scholar

60 Beer, Samuel, ‘Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain’, American Political Science Review, L (1956), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Professor Edward Martin, President of the American Economics Association, quoted in Shonfield, Andrew, Modern Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

62 Maas, Arthur, Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the Nation's Rivers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Lowi, Theodore, ‘American Business and Public Policy: Case Studies and Political Theories,’ World Politics, XVI (1964), 677–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Reedy, George, The Twilight of the Presidency (New York: Mentor Books, 1970).Google Scholar