In the 1994 elections, Bill Clinton lost both houses of Congress. His approval ratings rose 25 points in the next six years. George W. Bush regained control of both houses of Congress in the 2002 mid-terms. His approval rating fell for the next six years. Barack Obama took office with commanding majorities in both houses. Once he hit the filibuster number of 60, his approval rating numbers dropped like a stone.
There is a common thread there. It's probably a mistake to extrapolate too much further back (seeing as the Democrats held the House for forty years), but one thing is clear for the approval ratings of presidents since 1994. If you're going along with Congress, the American people are going to think you're going in the wrong direction.
Congress is easy to be hated because they're politicians. You meet one, you tend to like them, but as a group, they play an arcane game of rules, regulations, power and personalities that the public knows is not in their best interest. Congress is ruled by the parties, and parties are like a disease. Don't get me wrong - I personally think parties are essential for getting anything done. They provide stability and positive gridlock, a necessity for any complex system. Those who don't appreciate the necessity of parties in the modern world aren't being realistic. But any honorable man should loathe the necessities of party in private, even if they do support them in public. The good ones do.
But American Presidents are a different story. Or they are supposed to be. Clinton lucked out - losing both houses and having something to fight against. Bush focused on national security, and left Congress to do its own thing on the domestic front. He failed to stand up to his party, and he paid the price. Barack Obama is walking that same path, letting Congress handle things, and he too, is paying that price.
The public is a large and complex beast, but some things we can agree on. We want a president who stands up for all of us. During wars, this is pretty easy. The president gets to stand out front and say "we're going to beat the bad guys." The enemies are clear. Success is easily identified. Did you win? But on the domestic front,who are the enemies? Most people are uncomfortable labeling the enemy as their fellow citizens. And we know that the winners and losers are rarely the public, but instead are the easily identified beneficiaries who write the laws, get the public funds, and aren't suffering. From bailouts to monopolies to public sector unions to defense contractors, the domestic front success seems only to be those who are politically connected, and that's always going to be an easily scorned minority. Democrats hate Halliburton, and Republicans hate ACORN, because they're easily identified, and on the side of the people in power.
Obama is having a much more difficult time blaming insurance companies, oil companies, and even banks as an enemy because people rightly see that he has the power. And we all know, that someone is making out like a bandit from all of this, and it's those who are connected to those in power - the Democrats. When Republican win back power in November, we'll see if Obama is capable of taking on the mantle of defending the people, but it's not likely he possesses the temperament or staff to do so. He is sadly headed towards a trajectory of a weakened executive branch, something that is not positive for the country.
Going into 2012, the real question is what kind of president do modern Americans want? We face severe problems at home and abroad. Electing a leader who cannot remain popular is bad for the country. So what do we need to be looking for in a leader?
Here are a few qualities I'd like to see:
1) A president that treats transparency and good governing as a paramount concern
The Tea Party started out of a concern about spending, but it gained real strength and traction when cap-and-trade and healthcare bills were written behind closed doors and passed with procedural gimmicks. If Obama and the Democrats had approached healthcare in an open and transparent manner, it's doubtful the Tea Party would ever have gained traction. The idea that healthcare bills that were never read or debated out in the open could possibly be good for the country is an affront to the public. Set aside the rhetoric, and what you see is a Congress afraid to show us what they want to do because they don't think they can pass it if they're honest.
Any president who wants to take the side of the American public can do so with a simple statement. I will veto any bill that is created behind closed doors and passed with arcane rules. Imagine how powerful Obama would be if he threatened to veto a bill passed through reconciliation or through the Slaughter rule. For that matter, imagine George Bush vetoing a bill that had 500 earmarks tucked into it after the vote and before it reached his desk. That would have sent shockwaves through the Congress, but it also would have been a strong point for a president. Send me clean bills debated openly without secret provisions, or I'll send them back to you. That's a president worth following.
2) A president of a party, who truly can reach beyond the party to get things done
Our national finances are in terrible shape. A true leader would look at the big issues and plan on how to solve them regardless of party. You do that by recognizing the party structure without making yourself beholden to it. Imagine if the White House came to Republicans and made plans to get 20 votes. The legislation would look significantly different, but it would be passed, and Democrats would get credit. This was done for TARP, and while it was based on safe districts in both parties, it was an example of how to pass large and complex legislation.
That never happened. Democrats wanted Republican votes only for cover, to call their legislation bi-partisan. They succeeded with the stimulus, got a few votes for cap-and-trade, got one vote for healthcare, and now, are getting nothing. They stiffened the spine of the Republicans, and now they're held hostage by Democrats like Nelson, Landrieux, and Stupak.
3) A president who isn't afraid to ask for a new congress
I'm no fool. Opposition parties often see the defeat of legislation as their key to victory in elections. This was true with the Democrats with Social Security, and it's true with the Republicans with healthcare. While some legislators may have deep-rooted convictions, others are simply riding the public waves. How do you stop that? How do you get people to sit down with you? You start early. You define the battlespace, and you use the midterm elections to make your case.
Bush did this brilliantly in 2002, and won six Senate seats to move his agenda forward. The political environment didn't allow for this in 2006 after his defeat with Social Security, but at that point, the Iraq war and Republican corruption began to overshadow his efforts. That, and the fact that Bush never fought Congress when it mattered. He vetoed the stem cell bill, but didn't really stand up to Congress about the way it was run until it was too late. Once the Democrats took over, Bush was a lame duck. The time to effect change isn't after you lose.
Imagine a president who laid out a political message that was open, transparent, and offered to bring the parties together. This is what Reagan did so well. It's difficult for us to remember, but passing a bill that cut income tax rates from 70 to 28% is astonishing. We fought tooth and nail over a few percentage points for Clinton tax increases and Bush tax cuts, passing them on narrow votes with partisan majorities. How did Reagan pull it off with a Democratic House? He did it by reaching out to the American people.
Presidents of course will want to improve the numbers in their own party, but today's environment requires more. That "more" is using the bully pulpit to speak to voters about the kinds of people you want in Congress. Imagine a President who worked with challengers or raised money for candidates working to throw out incalcitrant incumbents. Hard to imagine, isn't it? There's a lot of risk in such a strategy, but if you're really focused on altering the way we do politics, it's going to begin with a personality that seems above it all. Obama is already too partisan to ever achieve this. Reagan pulled it off by targeting liberals before he was elected. Going back any further, you really have to look at an Eisenhower or a Teddy Roosevelt to find the kind of broad-based appeal that transcended party and makes such a move possible.
What we really need is an Independent President, but you're not going to get one. The next best thing is electing a President who governs as an independent.
4) A president who vetos, and threatens to veto the nonsense.
Bush and Obama didn't veto. Clinton and Reagan did. Who was most popular? The veto is a great device, but it's used to narrowly. The right kind of president would veto a hugely popular bill that took months to create if a forty page amendment was added at the last second. The right kind of president would veto any bill that held funding for the troops if they added an unrelated amendment to slip it through. The veto would of course have to be followed with a very public attack on the Congressman who attempted the nonsense. If Congress wanted to fight, the President could veto every piece of legislation until something like the troop funding was sent clean and clear.
Today's politics make this much easier. Think of what happened with Joe Wilson, Doug Hoffman, and Scott Brown. There are millions of people that would stand with a President who asked for contributions to the primary opponent of a single Congressman. If we trusted that President, and they were a person of character and conviction (like a Reagan or Eisenhower), the pressure would be too much for any Congressman.
This of course would only work in the furtherance of good governance. A simple issue that could be understand as the fair way versus the slick political way would be the most effective. Who can argue with fairness? The cumulative effect is what you are looking for, and it's something that Congress could quickly get behind. A president can lose on signature issues like Social Security and Healthcare, but how can they lose a fight for a clean government?
What Do The People Really Want?
If you want to know what the people really want, you can take a look at the 2008 election. The marketing pitch Axelrod put on Obama fooled a lot of people. McCain was never able to generate enough concern about Obama to make a difference, and it's because Obama appeared to be that post-partisan, budget-conscious, intelligent and thoughtful candidate who was really going to transform politics.
Sure there were the people who worshipped the Lightbringer and those who thought it was cool to vote for a bi-racial president, but the responsible voters took a look at McCain and Obama and concluded only one had a shot at changing the tone of Washington. Now, they may have gotten a thin-skinned, teleprompter-dependent orator backed up by nasty partisans from the Chicago machine, but they thought he was going to be something else.
That something else is still what the voters crave.
Great piece!
Posted by: SallyW | 03/12/2010 at 11:24 AM