Political Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 95–124 | Cite as

He's Stealing My Issues! Clinton's Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership

  • David B. Holian


This research draws from theories of issue ownership and “crafted talk” to propose a way to systematically analyze how political elites use rhetoric to gain a strategic advantage over their opponents. The example described is President Clinton's success in neutralizing the Republican advantage on issues related to crime fighting. This research provides descriptive evidence to support Clinton's success in this endeavor. Moreover, using content analyses of elite attention to crime from 1981 to 2000, the analysis demonstrates that Clinton not only changed the dimension over which the parties discussed crime, from a focus on punishment to one stressing prevention, but also served as an agenda setter for media coverage of crime using this new emphasis.

rhetoric issue ownership crime content analysis presidency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akaike, Hirotogu (1974). A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. AC-19: 716–723.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 335–357.Google Scholar
  3. Bartels, Larry M. (1996). Politicians and the press: Who leads, who follows? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 28-September 1.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, Frank, and Jones, Bryan D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brace, Paul, and Hinckley, Barbara (1992). Follow the Leader: Opinion Polls and the Modern Presidents. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, Barbara (1988). Where the candidates stand on crime and ethics. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 3.Google Scholar
  7. Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis J. (1983). Party competition-selective emphasis or direct confrontation? An alternative view with data. In Hans Daadler and Peter Mair (eds.), Western European Party Systems, pp. 267–306. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Burden, Barry C. and Sanberg, Joseph Neal Rice (2003). Budget rhetoric in presidential campaigns from 1952 to 2000. Political Behavior 25: 97–118.Google Scholar
  9. Carmines, Edward G., and Kuklinski, James H. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In James H. Kuklinski and John A. Ferejohn,(eds.), Information and Democratic Processes. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, Jeffrey E. (1995). Presidential rhetoric and the public agenda. American Journal of Political Science 39: 87–107.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, Jeffrey E. (1997). Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dearing, James W., and Rogers, Everett M. (1996). Agenda Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, George C., III, and Wood, B. Dan (1999). Who influences whom? The president, congress, and the media. American Political Science Review 93: 327–344.Google Scholar
  14. Erbring, Lutz, Goldenberg, Edie N., and Miller, Arthur H. (1980). Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media. American Journal of Political Science 24: 16–49.Google Scholar
  15. Flemming, Roy B., Wood B., Dan, and Bohte, John (1999). Attention to issues in a system of separated powers: The macrodynamics of American policy agendas. Journal of Politics 61: 76–108.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman, John, Houser, Daniel, Kellstedt, Paul M., and Williams, John T. (1998). Long-memoried processes, unit roots, and causal inference in political science. American Journal of Political Science 42: 1289–1327.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, John R., Williams, John T., and Lin, Tse-min (1989). Vector autoregression and the study of politics. American Journal of Political Science 33: 842–877.Google Scholar
  18. Germond, Jack W., and Witcover, Jules (1993). Mad As Hell: Revolt at the Ballot Box, 1992. New York: Warner Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Gerner, Deborah, and Philip A. Schrodt (1996). The Kansas Event Data System: A beginners guide with an application to the study of media fatigue in the Palestinian Intifada. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 28-September 1.Google Scholar
  20. Holmes, Steven A. (1994). Blacks relent on crime bill, but not without bitterness. The New York Times, sec. A, p. 1.Google Scholar
  21. Iffil, Gwen (1992). The 1992 campaign: Democrats; Clinton stands by remark on rapper. The New York Times, sec. A, p. 16.Google Scholar
  22. Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. (1987). News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y. (2000). Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, Charles O. (1994). The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  25. Judge, George G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R., Carter, Lutkepohl, Helmit, and Lee, Tsoung-Chao (1988). Introduction to the Theory and Practice and Practice of Econometrics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Second Edition. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  27. Krause, George A. (1997). Policy preference formation and subsystem behaviour: The case of commercial bank regulation, British Journal of Political Science 27: 525–550.Google Scholar
  28. La Ganga, Maria L., Shogan, Robert, and Chen, Edwin (1996). Missteps, lost opportunities taking their toll on Dole. Los Angeles Times, part A, p. 1.Google Scholar
  29. Lubell, Samuel (1970). The Hidden Crisis in American Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  30. McCombs, Maxwell E., and Shaw, Donald L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–187.Google Scholar
  31. McGinnis, Michael D., and Williams, John T. (1989). Change and stability in superpower rivalry. American Political Science Review 83: 1101–1123.Google Scholar
  32. Morris, Dick (1999). Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds. Los Angeles: Renaissance Books.Google Scholar
  33. Nisbett, Richard and Ross, Lee (1980). Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Petrocik, John R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–850.Google Scholar
  35. Phillips, Kevin B. (1970). The Emerging Republican Majority. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  36. Popkin, Samuel (1994). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pratto, Felicia, and John, Oliver P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 382–391.Google Scholar
  38. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. (1981-2001). Washington, DC: Federal Register Division, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration.Google Scholar
  39. Rahn, Wendy M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37: 472–496.Google Scholar
  40. Riffe, Daniel, Lacy, Stephen, and Fico, Frederick G. (1998). Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Riker, William H. (1984). The heresthetics of constitution-making: The presidency in 1787, with comments on determinism and rational choice. American Political Science Review 78: 1–16.Google Scholar
  42. Riker, William H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Riker, William H. (1996). The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, Steven V. (1981). Kennedy set to compromise to obtain gun Control bill. The New York Times, sec. A, p. 22.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, Everett M., and Dearing, James W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? Communication Yearbook 11: 555–594.Google Scholar
  46. Sears, David O., and Richard E. Whitney (1973). Political Persuasion. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sellers, Patrick J. (1998). Strategy and background in congressional campaigns. American Political Science Review 92: 159–171.Google Scholar
  48. Shaw, Donald L., and McCombs, Maxwell E. (1977). The Emergence of American Political Issues: The Agenda-Setting Function of the Media. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  49. Sims, Christopher A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48: 1–48.Google Scholar
  50. Sims, Christopher A., and Zha, Tao (1999). Error bands for impulse responses. Econometrica 67: 1113–1155.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, Jeffrey R. (1989). U.S. assault weapons ban 'under review,' aide says. The Washington Post, p. A6.Google Scholar
  52. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, John T. (1990). The political manipulation of macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review 84: 767–795.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, John T., and Collins, Brian K. (1997). The political economy of corporate taxation. American Journal of Political Science 41: 208–244.Google Scholar
  55. Wood, B., Dan, and Peake, Jeffrey S. (1998). The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting. American Political Science Review 92: 173–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Holian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboro

Personalised recommendations