The ability of Congress to set the agenda

                In many instances, Congress has the ability to set the political agenda. This is more noticeable in the domestic realm, in which the powers of the legislative branch are greater vis-à-vis the executive than in the realm of foreign policy. Moreover, Congress alone does not set the political agenda. Whilst Congress represents public opinion and might therefore push forward an agenda in tune with the American people, it may also fail to adequately represent the wishes of the people. The executive branch can of course set the agenda, as too can the judiciary in an indirect manner via a landmark constitutional ruling such as Roe v. Wade (1973). State legislatures may also shape the political agenda, along with interest groups and in a broader sense public opinion itself. However, the focus here is purely upon Congress.

                The ability of Congress to set the political agenda has been curtailed by the inability of the two parties to reach a bipartisan position. On many occasions, Republicans and Democrats have put political point-scoring over the need to work together. There are few better illustrations of this problem than the budget. The power of the purse is always of major importance in any political regime. Rather than seeking a compromise position, Congress has been characterized by obstructionism rather than compromise.

                The legislative branch of government has a wide range of powers available in order to shape the political agenda. However, it has been undermined by ideological polarization. By way of contrast, the executive branch of government has been able to promote their agenda via executive orders (as was the case in January 2016 over gun control), press conferences, signing statements and keynote speeches. Equally, the political agenda is shaped to some degree by the judicial branch. In recent years, there have been landmark decisions concerning gun control (DC v. Heller (2008)), campaign funding (FEC v. Citizens United (2010)), health care (NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)) and gay marriage (US v. Windsor (2013) / Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)). Although the Supreme Court does not necessarily seek to shape the political agenda, it will invariably bear relevance as a consequence of the judgment reached. It should also be recognized that the ability of Congress to promote a particular agenda can be thwarted by a judgment taken by the Supreme Court. For instance, the Citizens United ruling effectively dented the impact of the McCain-Feingold Act in regards to campaign finance.

It must also be noted that state legislatures can promote an agenda given a sufficient level of political will. During the 1990s, there was a groundswell of opinion amongst many state legislatures for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Although it was ultimately unsuccessful, the issue was pushed forward by the state legislatures (and eventually adopted in several of those states). Congress also played a key role in this particular area. Interest groups also promote various agendas, particularly the most powerful such as the NRA in regards to gun control and the AIPAC / ADL in regards to America’s stance in the Middle East. Public opinion also has an impact upon the political agenda, with members of Congress taking up a particular cause in order to reflect what the people want.