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-Ã -vis Bush, 2001- 2005; and Congress vis-Ã -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.
It makes me wonder about Obama not being able to close Guantanamo. Somehow the failure to do so is blamed on Congress for not allocating the funds to make that possible, or at least the need for some sort of Congressional approval being necessary to accomplish a technical closing. But it seems to me that Obama as Commander-in- Chief has the authority to move the suspected terrorists onto American soil (any military facility) and thus effective breaking the back of what Guantanamo represents..It’s not the housing of prisoners..it’s the keeping them outside of the law.
So what’s the deal with Obama…Does he say he wants to close Guantanamo but really doesn’t, or doesn’t want to close it for political reasons? Is Congress to blame?Does anybody know whats going on in regard to cleaning up that stain on American principles? Is the whole thing going to remain unaddressed until it disappears from the face of the earth?
Guantanamo is an issue that really bothers me..It’s a big shit stain on America..And I’d hate to see the same logic applied to Guantanamo as I saw on a poster in a dentists office years ago…Your teeth bothering you?..Ignore them..they’ll go away!
My understanding is that the issue with Guantanamo is what to do about the prisoners who were tortured. They can’t be tried, which makes bringing them to the U.S. is a problem. Our criminal justice system doesn’t allow for holding people indefinitely without trial. There may be reasons the6 can’t just be turned loose.
“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.”
Hmmm, now where have I heard that before, maha?
I have great respect for the prolific blogger Maha. But when it comes to her repeatedly mocking the name “Tim,” I have to say: Get a grip.
I named my son Timothy. I have every reason to be proud of my Tim, and I am, especially since he recently made me a grandmother.
I’ve got nothing against the name “Tim.” It’s just not a name that fits the presidential masculine mystique.
Bruce is probably out, too. Also the first woman president will not be named Tiffany or Fawn.
Daphne Chyprious ..About 30 years ago Howard Stern used to do a radio skit of a flaming homosexual character and that character’s name was the same name as mine. Initially I was insulted by it because it’s a very uncommon name and traditionally the name Bruce was used for that type of character. My point is… don’t take it seriously and don’t take it personally. It’s just impersonal fun without intention to slight anyone.
Or, Barbie, Desiree, or Bambi.
And probably not Eudora, Gladys, Nunziata, Phyllis, or a bunch of “ethnic” names, like Lakeesha, Esperanze, or Mae Ling.
For men, besides Tim – Adolph, Victor, Vladimir, Rufus, Leroy, and a plethora of others.
Though, if you asked me before 2004, I’d have bet every dollar I’d ever earned, or ever would earn, that no one name Barack Hussein Obama would ever get a sniff of getting nominated, let alone elected. 🙂
So, one never knows, do one?
I not only find Greenwald’s laser-like focus on human rights admirable, but I agree with him 100%. It’s the area of Human rights that holds my deepest disappointments with Obama. But I find Glenn unremarkable on other political issues, and in fact pretty naive when it comes to domestic politics outside of that focus. We need him and more people like him to hold our feet to the fire when it comes to human rights in and of America. But he’s hardly a standard-bearer for progressive politics in general.
Maha, That post about Presidential masculine mystique was the first post I ever read at the Mahablog..I became an instant follower of the Mahablog after reading it….Not to fluff you up..but you’re an excellent writer and a pretty sharp cookie to boot. I used to be a reader of The American Street…and I think that’s where I picked up on your blog.
Thanks for the feedback, especially swami. I waited until Maha made the reference several times before I let it become a grudge, if not a particularly serious one. One of the reasons I continue to call my son Timothy unlike almost everyone else, including himself, is because it DOES sound so much more substantial. I suppose if he ever achieves some sort of public renown he’ll use it as well. Meanwhile, of course I love him regardless of name or position.
One of the reasons I continue to call my son Timothy unlike almost everyone else, including himself, is because it DOES sound so much more substantial.
I have a son named Daniel, and my wife corrects anybody who uses any form of derivative of that name to call him by. Even his friends who call him Dan call him Daniel in the presences of my wife….nobody get a waiver to deviate from the name she gave to him.
Wow! What a read that article you linked to above gave me! Maha, it was powerful, deep and dead-on! I had not found you when you wrote that, but I sure wish I had. A stunning chunk of words!
And Daphne, one of the most serious, capable guys I have ever known was named Timothy, and called it as well. Names are all vulnerable. My last name is Bush, a terrible misfortune in its own right. Talk about your humiliating blindsiders! But the worst was “When are you going to grow up and be a tree?” That always seemed to be an utterly original thought to the myriad jokesters. I heard it too many times to count, till I finally started answering, “When you come up with an original joke.” It was a little too smart-ass to my parents, but I stuck with it and moved on. Names do not matter. Lives do. Your son has half the battle won: a thoughtful parent.
I don’t think Rick is a very Presidential name either.
“I don’t think Rick is a very Presidential name either.”
He oughta go by “Dick”, of course.
Rick the Dick?
President’s get stuff done based on their power to persuade people to go along with their agenda. They have very little constitutional power. If Congress doesn’t want to go along with the president, there’s little the prez can do to persuade them. Now think LBJ or FDR, who were good at ‘persuading’ congresscritters to see things their way. As referenced above, the Blue Dogs are a persistent annoyance for democratic presidents to get stuff done. Seriously, Ben Nelson out of NE (I know, he isn’t technically a ‘blue dog’), seriously undermines democratic agenda more so than a republican would do, mainly because the republicans wouldn’t do it. Dems vote against their party line more then reps do.
Greenwald’s point is–and consistently has been–that Obama doesn’t want to do the obviously right thing from a reasonable (i.e. progressive) point of view. He didn’t want an adequate stimulus, being already worried about the deficit. He didn’t want a public option, having quickly bargained it away. He didn’t want to punish the criminal banksters. He didn’t want to close Guantanamo. He didn’t want to prosecute the phone companies for their illegal wiretapping. He didn’t want to prosecute American war criminals, at least the high-level ones. And he certainly didn’t want to press for any obvious progressive causes. Why is this obvious? Because he did not try to accomplish anything decent for this country in her time of absolute trial after what any thinking person realizes was the disastrous reign of the Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief. What did he want to do?
He wanted to declare war on whistle blowers (the most transparent administration ever?), and he did. Apparently, he wanted to trash the tens of thousands of DFHs that worked and gave to elect him. Why do I say this? Because he has, and continues to do so, viz the OFA minion who called Krugman–the one man on the NYTimes and perhaps the whole establishment–who has gotten our economic travail close to 100% right since before the crash of 2008.
Greenwald doesn’t claim to know why and neither do I. But I do know that it is a dirty rotten shame, a terrible waste, and a setback to decency in this country so severe that it may take tumbrils to correct. Less worrisome than that, by his fecklessness–or malignant design, or ignorance–he has jeopardized his re-election and the possibility that the only halfway passable party in our system can retake Congress from the truly insane and totally corrupt GOP. For that alone, he should hang his head in shame. But he wont because he doesn’t think he has failed. And if his GOP kinda lite schtick continues, he might even give us the delight of some far right, totally corporate troglodyte as his successor in 2013. Then the choice between serfdom and pitchforks might become clear enough to enough citizens to change the system. One hopes it will be through the ballot box, but I would not bet on it.
That’s irrational, and it’s irrational for the reasons Scott explained. And if the President is such a tool for the corporatists — and I agree he caves in to them more than I’d like– why has he appointed people to management positions in regulatory agencies that the corporations don’t like? People like David Michaels, OSHA, for example. (See in particular John Judis, “The Quiet Revolution.”) Because, as Scott explained, the President has a bit more leeway in making appointments than he does in getting new domestic policy enacted. And even then, Congress was able to block the appointment of Elizabeth Warren. But overall his choices for the regulatory agencies have been considerably more progressive and less sympathetic to the corporations than Bush’s appointments were, and his agencies have written lots of rules that the corporations don’t like.
If you argue that he has been less skillful than he could have been in getting legislation passed; if you argue that he’s a weak negotiator; if you argue that he’s naive to think bipartisanship could work in Washington — OK, those are reasonable arguments. But to say that he has failed to do this or that because that’s what he really wanted all along is insane. Get a grip. And do it somewhere else.
PS and I can’t believe I forgot to mention it: Timothy’s birthday is today (the 18th). He made me a grandmother on the 10th. Bill, it is perfectly legal to change one’s name for any reason, and you’ve certainly got a good one.
It has nothing to do with the outcome or the issue but I still admire how Bush took the fight to privatize Social Security on the road. Thank God America told him “No, you can’t.” Now, whaddya know but Obama got himself a bus.
I too was taken in by Bush until the fearful spectre of aluminum rods and yellow cake from Niger was debunked. Some of the Democratic support owes to that verve and evocative freshness in the presentation of his bad ideas, despite bad grammar and invented words.
Barbara. thanks for pointing out the absolute irrationality of that post.
Obama basically got a year to do what he WANTED to do, when he had the 60 votes in the Senate. After that he could get nothing through (except the ACA which had to be passed in the Senate with reconciliation). I don’t think that Obama was naive to believe in bipartisanship, that really is the way that the system was designed to work. The level of opposition from the Republicans is unprecedented. Seriously, up until 2010 he had 59 votes in the Senate, and couldn’t get one Republican vote, couldn’t get one. That’s not on Obama, that’s on the Republicans. While I’m with Maha and wish Obama would fight for the middle class more, it really wouldn’t make much of a difference. You’ve got a Republican party who has Senators and presidential candidates that openly talk about violence toward people that don’t agree with them. The system was designed to really not get anything done, and we’ve added many safeguards along the way to make it even more difficult like the filibuster and the committee system, to the point now where one person can hold up a nomination. Simply crazy. And now when you’ve gotta get something done for the good of the country, and one party is only hell bent on winning the next election, they can do that and drag the country down with it. It’s really a party that does not believe in democracy.
And lets not forget the latest abomination: a “Super Committee.”
Like regular committees weren’t bad enough already…
“he might even give us the delight of some far right, totally corporate troglodyte as his successor”
Wow that’s rich. You do nothing but trash the man, by your post it’s obvious you want him to fail, then you’ll blame him if he loses the next election? That’s a little like setting your neighbors house ablaze and then blaming the fire department for not dousing it before your house burns down.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Immigration Initiative
While I don’t agree with all of that post I did not intuit that sort of intent from it. The pattern inherent in these arguments is to counter with some example of what Obama did to to oppose the right (rather than capitulate). But I certainly understand the poster’s consternation over, for example, how we can tell whether Obama wants to close Guantanamo…how we can tell that he wants to engage economic perspectives in his administration outside of the good ol’ boy network that was the source of the problems.These are qualitative arguments that defy the tit for tat bean counting inherent in engaging discrete examples of capitulation or fighting back.
Though I believe that his ascribing intent is weak it is just as weak in a rebuttal. It seems clear to me that we can tell what someone wants based on what they attempt. I believe the President risks more by not being clear about intent…even to the point of trying and failing. If the alternative is to carefully navigate so as to never appear to have endured a single defeat then I’m for more overt initiative that serves to demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, his intent.
That is a more stylistic, subjective thing that defies the bean-counter approach to either appointments or handling of specific issues. More important than anything, a strong leader has to avoid the appearance of tepidness which only emboldens the opposition. People will line up behind one they perceive to be a fighter even if he goes down fighting on a given issue. How does anyone believe that a Rick Perry can have a following? His intelligent, rational appeal? LOL!
There seems to be a gap between whatever intellectual circumlocution or gymnastics he engages to arrive at a position and what will sell….for instance on Guantanamo. Meanwhile, his opposition sells simplicity…emotionally. It seems very clear to me how twtfltrd and many others arrive at their conclusions out of frustration. This is not rocket science. If one wants to talk political reality then they need to heed this effect or those they support will have their lunch eaten by those who proactively seek out issues on which they can project backbone and a willingness to fight (no matter how disingenuous it might be).
I wish Obama were more versatile but he’s all we have. I hope he’s not too old to learn.
Not necessarily, if what one wants is impossible under present conditions, or might even be counterproductive to other goals.