Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

The President needs to lead.

Let failing businesses fail. It is the natural order of things. Let strong well managed businesses thrive.

Right, the President is a victim. That is what I thought the response would be. Imagine if the President did not have unexpected problems, opposition, tough decisions to make, the Constitution, etc, he would be the greatest President in history.

 

The Constitution lays out some rules, but they are easily circumvented, and have been since 1789.

There is always a certain power dynamic between the executive and the legislative branch, whether President/Congress, Governor/Legislature, Mayor/City Council. And this dynamic applies REGARDLESS of which party is which.

Legislators are not chosen for, or rewarded for, their executive skills. Taken as a group, especially as a large group, they are almost incapable of doing straightforward responsible adult things like balancing a budget.

That's because each of them has at least one very strong personal priority, probably driven by the specific constituency they represent. Generally, this priority requires some kind of public expenditure.

The only way for any specific legislator to accomplish this goal is to assemble support from other members -- each of whom also have some kind of personal priority that requires some kind of public expenditure. So they make a deal to reciprocally support each other's expenditure. This is called log-rolling, and is inherent in the legislative process.

Overblown rhetoric aside, there is almost nobody in a typical legislative body who places a higher priority on controlling spending in general, than increasing spending on whatever the personal priority is. Almost no constituency would tolerate being represented by someone with so little regard for its interests.

By contrast, the executive needs to make everything work. For the executive, effective governing takes a higher priority than any specific expenditure.

The executive needs the budget to be balanced (or at least in some kind of control). Runaway spending undermines not only the authority of the executive, but the stability of the whole government.

If the president and his budget apparatus were to disappear, leaving Congress in charge of the budget, spending would scream upward to unsustainable levels. Tax cuts would be popular, too.

It doesn't matter whether the houses are controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Rhetoric aside, everybody is in favor of spending when it's the spending they like. Rhetoric aside, everybody likes to vote "yes" on tax cuts. Everybody likes to get re-elected. No individual Congressman is ever held responsible for the overall budget.

An executive has a responsibility to set spending priorities, that is, to say "no" to most of the people who are screaming for more money for their own personal priorities. Every American president since Washington has done this (yes, even Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, or any other president you personally detest). Practically every governor or mayor does this. It's part of the job.

As a general rule, no legislature is capable of hard choices (that is, cutting spending or increasing taxes) without leadership from the executive.

Presidents and governors admittedly get way too much credit or blame for the state of the economy. But they DO deserve credit or blame for the way they govern -- even if some of that is technically the legislature's job.

Anyway ...

I've written this rant many times before, so I'm resigned to the fact that y'all will just ignore it, and go back to bashing the other party.

That doesn't make it any less true.

 

We have been through this before. To me the most stark example is a comparison between LBJ and Obama. LBJ was masterful at getting legislation passed. Obama is passive and does not even appear to try!
--- merged: May 6, 2014 at 4:31 PM ---

I tend to respond to posts I have an issue with - I generally have no disagreement with what you posted here.

All Presidents have faced opposition, all Presidents have had to build coalitions, however, supporters of Obama seem to think his circumstance is vastly unique, outside of the fact that every administration has faced its own unique set of challenges. Confronting challenges is the nature of the job. Obama simply makes excuses. Obama's supporter's buy into the excuses and do not seem to want to look at the issues objectively. Building a coalition requires an acknowledgment of the seriousness of those who disagree on some issue but but not all. For example I am conservative on most issues, but on others my views are very liberal - I could work with those here on liberal issues who find some of my conservative views distasteful. I could easily reach agreement here with the majority on the issue of immigration.

 

Sorry, but your comparison doesn't apply.
Yes, LBJ managed to punch through landmark legislation and alienate huge chunks of his party which is a problem to this day but he had some major advantages over our current president.
First he served in the House and the Senate all the way back to FDR so he knew the people and where the bodies were buried.
Second the economy was in good shape so he could do things without the constant whine of 'how are we going to pay for this?'.
Third he really didn't give a damn what people wanted, if he wanted it.
Fourth, he was white.

The president does care and tries to get a conscientious.
Don't mistake that for passivity, it's pretty cool if you're trying to put together a group of people to accomplish something but in politics sometimes you have to thump heads and I don't think he likes to do that.
Not being an asshole can be a drawback sometimes.
We all know about the economy.
And of course the House pretty much hates him and wont work with him no matter what and I'm pretty sure racism has a certain amount to do with that.
Not so much from all of the politicians but from the people they represent, since they know if they work with the president they will have to deal the backwards people who voted for them.

 

O.k., I can not disagree. Things have been done. Are we satisfied? I am not, are you?
--- merged: May 6, 2014 at 5:37 PM ---

How do we measure Congress. A Congress who votes no to the President may be a good thing. I assume many would have wanted Congress to say no to Bush's request to use military force with Iraq. Do we agree that Congress can not be measured simply by doing what the President wants?
--- merged: May 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM ---

I am not comparing their resumes. I am comparing engagement - leadership - conviction - decisiveness - the willingness to take a risk for what one considers the greater good. On that basis, would you still say the comparison doesn't apply? There is no doubt in my mind that it is a good comparison.

The heavy lifting is not done in public or through the media or in keynote speeches.

Asshole? - he passively calls those who disagree with his agenda racists - he calls them anti-woman - anti this/that everything under the sun. His strategy has been to try to shame people into coming to the table - it has not worked and is not going to work - how about trying something that does work - assuming he wants to get anything done in the next three years.

 

Any president, D or R, needs a partner in Congress willing to work together, build consensus, compromise and address the needs of the nation in a way that serves the greater good rather than a rigid ideology.

Reagan had Tip O'Neill. Clinton had Newt Gingrich (until he went off rail and shut down the govt and then lost his job). Bush had Pelosi and Reid (granted, less willing but certainly not obstructionist).

Obama has Mitch McConnell who said on the first day of the Obama admin. that his job was to see that Obama fails and has blocked more legislation than any minority party in the Senate in our lifetime.

That great leader in the House, John Boehner, is so afraid of losing his job to a revolt by the Tea Party fringe that he cant or wont come to the table.

 

Two widely respected Congressional scholars (one left, one right) wrote about it in 2012 and explained it to Bill Moyers:

Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann Explain Why Congress is Failing Us | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

I keep meaning to add their book to my list.

 

Summer beach reading

 

A few quotes by LBJ,

(Could you see our current POTUS getting away with that?)



I hope your mind's not as empty as that desk
I'I'm a powerful S.O.B., you know that?m a powerful S.O.B., you know that?

​

 

I am.

 

I think his biggest purpose was to de-mobilize the country from the patriotic frenzy began by his predecessor, and accomplish a couple of social-related things that would never have been accomplished or even looked at under a Republican president - namely, the whole gay thing - from gay rights, to gay marriage, gay military members, etc., healthcare availability, and (hopefully) something involving more access to contraception - although granted, I've heard an awful lot more talk about the third one than I've seen actual action. I think at this point he's largely filled his purpose though, which is fine, since at this point we're basically all just starting to look at who his replacement will be seeing as we're only a little over two years out from the end of his run as president. The haters can start to pipe down now - he's almost gone. It's generally best to focus on the future and the next era, not the past and the currently-ending era.

 

No. I expect my elected Congressman to be representative of my congressional district. I expect the President to be the government's most representative body because he is elected on a national basis.

There is no clear best interest of Americans on the most important issues of the day. I will restate - if we all agreed there would be no need for leadership. We need elected official to handle the given conflicts of interest in a manner consistent with our Constitution. If we all agreed on a course of action to an agreed upon goal, there would be no need for leadership. In our form of government we have to have a strong executive branch to set the national agenda and to lead Congress.

National polls of congressional approval ratings is meaningless. I think it gives a weak President an excuse for his failings.
--- merged: May 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM ---

The question I have is how do you nurture a partnership? I state that the President has not only failed to nurture a partnership with Republicans, but has alienated them.

I use myself as an example. I can be almost impossible to deal with or I can be easy to deal with. Anyone who takes more than 5 minutes to understand what triggers which response will be able to get the type of interaction they want from me. You may ask why don't I take the responsibility for the interaction - occasionally I do and occasionally I don't - it depends on the issue and how important it is to me i.e. minimum wage, I don't care what it is, if I am dealing with someone who cares, they need to set the terms of the debate.

Obama spends too much time in the media and in speeches creating a hostile environment. If he changed, his results with congress will change.

 

Yes, in private. And I believe many have said somethings in public they wish they had not said. Personally, I prefer the man who would look me in the eye and say he thinks I am asshole rather than the guy who would whisper it behind my back. Odds are the guy who looks me in the and says what he thinks would end up being an honored friend - regardless of our disagreements. With open and honest communication anything can be worked out.
--- merged: May 7, 2014 at 2:01 PM ---

Yes. The President and VP are the only nationally elected officials. He has the power of the people, the power of the office.

Getting elected is one thing, having outlined powers is one thing - being effective is another matter. We have had many ineffective Presidents.

If you think it will help.

Using TFP as a microcosm, there is no way you and I would ever agree on a balanced set of outcomes. But somehow decisions would have to be made. It is not possible for your interests and mine to be equally represent in any solution to the topics we generally discuss. So, yes. Please elaborate on what your point of view is.