Past research on presidential and gubernatorial rhetoric related to crime shows that both presidents and governors use symbolic statements in their crime rhetoric. To date, no research has analyzed how mayors employ political language related to crime. As mayors are politically closer to the people and have a greater impact on local crime policy, it is important to understand the nature of how mayors use symbolic language about crime. The current study draws on hypotheses derived from research related to presidents and governors and applies them to the top 50 city executives. A content analysis of 6 years (2005-2010) of mayors’ State of the City speeches was conducted to assess how mayors employ the issue of crime in their political communication. Overall, the results suggest that mayors employ crime rhetoric in a different manner from other executives when speaking to their constituents about crime.
BaumgartnerF.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BermanD. R.MerrillB. D. (1976). Citizen attitudes toward municipal reform institutions: A testing of some assumptions. Western Political Quarterly, 29, 274-283.
3.
CalderJ. D. (1982). Presidents and crime control: Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon and the influences of ideology. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 12, 574-589.
4.
CalderJ. D. (1993). The origins and development of federal crime control policy: Herbert Hoover’s initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.
5.
CaplanG. (1973). Reflections on the nationalization of crime, 1964-1968. Law and the Social Order, 1973, 583-635.
6.
CohenJ. E. (1995). Presidential rhetoric and the public agenda. American Journal of Politics, 39, 87-107.
7.
CohenJ. E. (1997). Presidential responsiveness and public policy-making: The public and the policies that presidents choose. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
8.
CroninT. E.CroninT. Z.MilakovichM. E. (1981). U.S. v. crime in the streets. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
DilulioJ. J.SmithS. K.SaigerA. J. (1995). The federal role in crime control. In WilsonJ. Q.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Crime (pp. 445-462). San Francisco, CA: ICS.
11.
EdelmanM. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
12.
EdelmanM. (1971). Politics as symbolic actions: Mass arousal and acquiescence. Chicago, IL: Markham.
13.
EdelmanM. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
EdwardsG. C.IIIWayneS. J. (1985). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy making. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
15.
ElderC. D.CobbR. G. (1983). Political Use of Symbols. New York: Longman.
16.
FairchildE.WebbV. (1985). Crime, justice and politics in the United States today. In FairchildE. S.WebbV. J. (Eds.), The politics of crime and criminal justice (pp. 1-21). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
17.
FelkenesG. T. (1992). Liberty, restraint, and criminal justice: Gerald Ford’s presidential concerns. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 147-160.
18.
FinckenauerJ. O. (1978). Crime as a national political issue: 1964-76. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 13-27.
19.
GertsonL. N. (2010). Public policy making: Process and principles (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
20.
GusfieldJ. R. (1967). Moral passage: The symbolic process in public designations of deviance. Social Problems, 15, 175-188.
21.
GusfieldJ. R. (1986). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
22.
HeckE. V.ShullS. A. (1982). Policy preferences of justice and presidents. Law and Policy Quarterly, 4, 327-338.
23.
JacobH.LineberryA.HeinzA. M.BeecherJ. A.MoranJ.SwankD. H. (1982). Governmental responses to crime: Crime on urban agendas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
24.
KaminerW. (1994). Federal offense. The Atlantic Monthly, 273, 102-114.
25.
KesselJ. H. (1974). Parameters of presidential politics. Social Science Quarterly, 55, 8-24.
26.
KuoW. H. (1973). Mayoral influence in urban policymaking. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 620-638.
27.
LightP. C. (1998). The president’s agenda: Domestic policy choices from Kennedy to Clinton (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
LorinskasR.KalinichD.BanasD. (1994). Symbolism and rhetoric: The guardians of status quo in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 5, 41-46.
29.
MarionN. E. (1992). Presidential agenda setting in crime control. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 6, 159-184.
30.
MarionN. E. (1994a). A history of federal crime control initiatives, 1960-1993. Westport, CT: Praeger.
31.
MarionN. E. (1994b). Symbolism and federal crime control legislation, 1960-1990. Journal of Crime and Justice, 17, 69-91.
32.
MarionN. E. (1997). Symbolic policies in Clinton’s crime control agenda. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 1, 67-108.
33.
MarionN. E.FarmerR. (2003). Crime control in the 2000 presidential election: A symbolic issue. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 129-144.
34.
MarionN. E.SmithC. E.OliverW. M. (2009). Gubernatorial crime control rhetoric: A study in symbolic politics. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 457-474.
35.
MillerL. L. (2010). The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
O’NeilT. (1995). All politics is local: And other rules of the game. New York, NY: Adams Media.
37.
OliverW. M. (1998). Presidential rhetoric on crime and public opinion. Criminal Justice Review, 23, 139-160.
38.
OliverW. M. (2001). Executive Orders: Symbolic Politics, Criminal Justice Policy and the American Presidency. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 1-22.
39.
OliverW. M. (2002). Executive orders: Symbolic politics, criminal justice policy, and the American presidency. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 1-21.
40.
OliverW. M. (2003). The law and order presidency. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
OliverW. M.BarlowD. E. (2005). Following the leader? Presidential influence over Congress in the passage of federal crime control policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 267-286.
42.
OliverW. M.MarionN. E. (2006). Budgets, institutions and change: Criminal justice policy in America revisited. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 451-467.
43.
PotterC. B. (1998). War on crime: Bandits, g-men, and the politics of mass culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
44.
ScheingoldS. (1991). The politics of street crime: Criminal process and cultural obsession. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
45.
ScheingoldS. (1995). Politics, public policy and street crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 141-154.
46.
SchraggerR. C. (2006). Can strong mayors empower weak cities? On the power of local executive in a federal system. Yale Law Journal, 115, 2542-2578.
47.
ShullS. A. (1989). The president and civil rights policy: Leadership and change. New York, NY: Greenwood.
48.
ShullS. A.RingelsteinA. C. (1989). Presidential attention, support and symbolism in civil rights, 1953-1984. Social Science Journal, 26, 45-54.
49.
StolzB. A. (1983). Congress and capital punishment: An exercise in symbolic politics. Law and Policy Quarterly, 5, 157-180.
50.
StolzB. A. (1999). Congress, symbolic politics and the evolution of the 1994 “Violence Against Women Act.”Criminal Justice Policy Review, 10, 401-428.
51.
StolzB. A. (2007). Interpreting the U.S. human trafficking debate through the lens of symbolic politics. Law and Policy, 29, 311-338.
52.
ThompsonJ. P. (2005). Seeking effective power: Why mayors need community Organizations. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 301-308.
