One of These Things Is Not Like the Other

I have a lot of respect for Glenn Greenwald, but I think the time has come to say — Glenn, get a grip.

Background: Scott Lemieux, who a professor of political science, wrote about presidential powers generally in a recent post. Scott explained that presidents have some powers to do some things but little power to do other things. For example, presidents have a lot of authority in the area of foreign policy, but relatively little in regard to enacting new domestic legislation.

Scott was responding to arguments that IF President Obama’s shortcomings are a result of the weakness of presidential power, then (a) how come George W. Bush could get anything done he wanted with a snap of the fingers; and (2) then it doesn’t matter if Rick Perry is elected in 2012, then? And Scott is saying that presidents have a lot of leeway in foreign policy and in implementing old policies, but in getting new domestic legislation done they are relatively weak.

But the fact that the president has very substantial powers in some areas doesn’t change the fact that in terms of domestic policy presidential power is subordinate and highly contingent. The fact that the president can unilaterally decide to bomb Libya doesn’t mean that the president can get 60 Senate votes for single payer health care because he really wants to. And pointing this out doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter whether Barack Obama or Rick Perry sits in the oval office.

He continues,

I’ve asked this before, but since I’ve never received a decent answer let me ask again: for people who believe in the Green Lantern theory of domestic presidential power, how do you explain the near-total lack of major legislation passed during George W. Bush’s second term, including a failure to even get a congressional vote on his signature initiative to privatize Social Security? He didn’t give enough speeches? He wasn’t ruthless enough? Help me out here.

Here is where Glenn comes in, blasting Scott for “focusing” on Bush’s second term rather than the first. Bush got all kinds of stuff through Congress in his FIRST term, nyah nyah nyah.

I’m sorry, but if you have to have the difference between Congress vis-à-vis Bush, 2001- 2005; and Congress vis-à-vis Obama, 2009-present, plus the domestic and political context of the aftermath of 9/11, explained to you, then you need a brain check.

Fortunately for me, yesterday Matthew Yglesias addressed “the surprisingly persistent myth that George W Bush was some kind of legislative steamroller who somehow coerced Congress into doing things it didn’t want to do through magic narrative powers that Barack Obama unaccountably fails to use.”

Focusing primarily on Bush’s first term, Matt pretty much shreds the notion that Bush somehow repeatedly bullied a reluctant Congress into doing anything it wasn’t already eager to do. Much of Bush’s domestic agenda had broad bipartisan support, believe it or not. And where it didn’t, he used his Republican majority to get ‘er done — passing his tax cuts through reconciliation, for example.

Neither Matt nor Scott are saying that Obama is without fault. Scott in particular is pleading with people to make a distinction between matters that presidents can do without going through Congress first, and things they can’t. And Matt is saying that Bush wasn’t really the political powerhouse he is made out to be. Rather, in his first term he was the benefactor of unusual circumstances and generally enjoyed the cooperation of Congress to a much greater degree than President Obama.

Now, it might be argued that President Bush was more skillful at handling Congress, but I clearly remember that by the second term even Republicans were complaining about the high-handed way Bush treated them. Matt argues that the biggest difference is not the White House, but Congress —

Then comes the part of the story where I think most people lose the plot, things like No Child Left Behind and the 2003 Medicare bill. The thing about these laws that’s crucial to understand is that their Democratic supporters genuinely wanted these bills to pass. I know people who worked with Ted Kennedy and George Miller on NCLB. They’re very proud of their work. They weren’t cowed into submission by Bush, they were excited about Bush’s willingness to deliver Republican votes for some ideas they like. It’s much the same with Team Baucus and the Medicare bill. This is important because this is exactly the ingredient that’s been missing from the Obama years. The White House keeps hoping it will find Republican partners who aren’t just reluctantly willing to work with it on things, but positively eager to do so. But time and again the Chuck Grassley or Lindsay Graham figure ends up folding faced with the superior party discipline of the GOP and the highly mobilized and ideologically homogeneous GOP base. This is a huge problem for the White House that Bush didn’t really face during his first term. But it’s not one you can solve with more or better intimidation.

Bush also didn’t have to deal with a Republican equivalent of the Blue Dogs. Even when President Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in Congress, a big chunk of those so-called Democrats worked against him rather than with him.

And this is not a secret. Congress is a huge factors in a president’s ability to enact his domestic agenda. This is something anyone who has taken high school civics ought to know. It is not something an intellectually honest person could dismiss.

Scott explicitly says that foreign policy is different, and that much of Glenn’s criticism of the President on foreign policy issues is correct. But there are many concrete and not all that complicated reasons why domestic issues are different.

Fallout From Wisconsin?

Last spring, Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed Senate Bill 5 (SB5) into law. Among other things, SB5 drastically reduced the collective bargaining power of all public workers, including teachers, police and firefighters.

However, it appears progressives in Ohio were able to get a referendum on the law on the ballot this November. Ohio voters will be given a chance to repeal it.

Now, all of a sudden, Gov. Kasich wants to compromise. And the unions are saying, repeal SB5 first, then we’ll talk.

Interesting development, I say.