Will a President Obama's relationship with a Democratic Congress be more like Bill Clinton's relationship with Democrats in 1992 or George W. Bush's relationship with Republicans in 2002?
« The Small Business Debate Cont'd | Main | Guess Who's On The Cover Of Rolling Stone ... Again. » Question Of The Jour15 Oct 2008 02:00 pm Comments (22)
It'll be more reciprocal than Bush in 2002, but similar IMO. Mainly because Obama's email list, money, and star power means if he supports a primary challenger you've got problems. In winning, he will also have a mandate for his economic proposals and to end the war meaning his health care plan and Iraq pull out can actually happen in the first hundred days. Success breads success: which will strenghten him politically. Obama is inheriting a huge mess; but a lot of political capital he pulls this election out. 
how bout neither.
Closer to Bush's, if I had to guess. Both would have a VP who has been a staple of Congress, has decades of relationships to use, and a intimate knowledge of procedure and back channels.
If the Dems are smart (always a legitimate concern) they will get hard behind Obama for a year or two of getting real reform out there. Get things better in 2 years, when the House runs again.
I think it will follow the 2002 Republican model. However, I do believe Obama will treat Congress as a co-equal branch as the Constitution intended. One of the problems that Clinton had in 1993 and 1994 was that he treated Congress a little like Bush has. He didn't consult with them about his healthcare plan and that was one of the many reasons why it failed. OTOH, Obama has already reached out to Congress, in particular, those horrible Blue Dogs. I think it shows he is going to be much smarter about his administration and get most of his agenda passed.
Considering that Obama's first task of late has been to work with the Blue Dogs, I'd say he WON'T be like Clinton in 1993-94. He will offer legislation that the Blue Dogs can support and then will pass it. He won't provoke fights with the Blue Dogs. It's a lot like Lincoln in the War Congress. After 1862 it was dominated by Republicans. But some were hardcore Radicals like Ben Wade and Charles Sumner while others were conservatives. Lincoln struck a moderate course between the two. FDR did the same, working between the conservative Dixiecrats and the hard liberals in the 1930s. A good President finds the middle ground between the factions. Bush operated mostly by convincing the leaders in the House (DeLay) and Senate (Frist) that his way was the way to build a permanent majority. Depsite misgivings the GOP went along and it paid off until 2006. The discipline was forced, however, and the Republicans paid a price.
You can remove the "a" in the phrase "a President Obama" any time now. Just sayin'.
non of the above a different model...will emerge...
Given the Republican party's current state, his relationship with the Republican caucus may also be quite interesting.
Closer to the latter, I would imagine. As a Senator, Obama has worked to cultivate a friendly working relationship with Congress in a way that Bill Clinton never really did. As a result, I think you'll see very little strife between a President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. The Republican minority, on the other hand, will be a different matter entirely.
Bush for the first 100 days. The congress will rubber-stamp. But Dems are a devisive group and don't play well with each other. It'll slowly morph to a Clinton model as O's poll numbers go down.
More like the latter than the former, but not exactly the same. The primary difference is that almost the Dixiecrats -- not Blue Dogs, but people who really should have been Republicans like Ralph Hall, Richard Shelby, Wyche Fowler, etc. are either gone or have become Republicans. Outside of a handful like John Barrow, Jim Marshall, and Allen Boyd the party is much more unified. Yes, some of the freshmen and soon-to-be-freshmen are not exactly progressives. Now, the Democratic coalition is inherently more fractured, but I think there is broad agreement on the stuff that needs to be done next.
The problem for Obama isn't on his right...it's to his left. Congressional liberals aren't going to sit by and let him waste this opportunity for a re-run of the New Deal. Especially as the economy is forecast to be in serious recession likely into mid-2010.
Neither. He's going to build coalitions and policy consensus before he presses hard for major reforms (A Clinton mistake). Bush built consensus but he did so by rallying public support to pressure congress. I don't see Obama taking that approach either. Call me crazy, but I think he'll be more like Reagan.
I should add that at this point the handful of remaining GOP moderates -- Jim Gerlach, the guys from New Jersey, New York, etc. -- are likely to blame the losses of their fellow moderates on the arch-conservative wing. I bet you'll see the Republican Main Street Partnership start acquiring some real power.
There are very few conservative dems today. So he will work with a party that is ideologically unified. Not only that but a potential sixty seat domestic senate progressive caucus will put the ball in the house court much of the time.
One of my biggest concerns about Obama is his unwillingness to take on the leadership of his party in congress, namely Pelosi and Reid, two people who, to me, have been the poster children of political decisiveness. Just once I would have like to have heard Obama say that both parties were at fault for the economic mess we are in. McCain alluded it to it in the debate, but not Obama. As a result I am not sure how an Obama relationship with congress might work out. I think there is some nervousness in the economic sector over the prospect of an all Democrat majority legislature with a Dem president as well. I saw mention earlier of the steps Obama has taken to work with others in congress, and I am sorry, I don't see it. For the majority of his tenure in the Senate he has been running for higher office. The Washington Post recently had a great article about his time in the IL legislature with a focus on his ambition. I think he ends up in office with an ego that may be hard for the rank and file Dems to handle and there could well be friction. It will be interesting to see who wins out. BTW, remember that Congress, with Pelosi and Reid at the helm have an even lower approval rating than Bush. Something will have to give.
Just to respond to John's comment above at 3:30, congressional Dems have approvals in the thirties, approx 10 points higher than Dubya, who is now at 23% in several polls this week, whereas congressional Cons have approvals in the low teens. America is smart enough to see that decent common sense legislation like SCHIP and healthcare and a GI Bill for our veterans and several dozen other pro-American bills have been filibustered by McConnell in the senate, and that once the obstructionists are bounced, legislation to help the middle class will get passed. The current Republican party is quickly on its way to oblivion, especially if it looks at the historical blowouts of '06 and '08 as reason to tack even farther to the right.
It wasn't that long ago that it was predicted that the Democratic party was predicted for oblivion. One of the great things about this nation is we seem to swing between the too, continually balancing out. As to the point about the approval ratings....30% isn't anything to rave about, but notice I didn't say one party or the other, I said Congress as a whole and Pelosi and Reid currently are the leaders of each house. What I have been looking for from the beginning is either of the candiates with the ball to stand up and say the government is broken from top to bottom. Challenges Congress to get their act in order and do the work of the people...not the work of their own, best, self interest. Frankly it is why I lean to McCain...he has a record of that. I have yet to see it in Obama. Frankly, I am from WI, and while I lean more conservative I would be more inclined to vote for someone like our own Senator Russ Feingold who breaks from his party and acts for the good of the nation, has demonstrated prudence, and has shown that he can work both sides of the aisle. Republicans had reasonable difference for each of the bills that you call common-sense and pro-American. With SCHIP it was expansion of the porgram beyond a simple renewal. The GI Bills had flaws as well. Healthcare is a fundamental question of how it is going to be implemented and carried out. In the first two you are right, they were filibustered, and then ultimately through the legistlative process they were passed. That is how our government works. It isn't a simple fiat for one party to say this is what we want and have it become so. If you want that move to some other country...ours wasn't set up that way. I may be wrong on what I see from Obama, and for the good of the country I hope so, but so far all I see is another politician with a lot of promises and a lot of holes on how he is going to fill them. McCain has disappointed me as well as the straight talk that made him appealing has also disappeared into typical partisanship. Frankly I can't wait until November 4th, I am growing weary of more of the same when I really hoped that we had a chance for something unique this time around.
I must be tired now that I see all of my typos...it has been a long day.
Neither. Not to, well, you know, but... I'm thinking Gandhi and the Hindus. Which was a tempestuous but loving relationship, although it ended badly...
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Obama's a money slash turnout machine - and like John Lewis congress is going to want to avoid young [read Obama inspired] primary challengers by staying on his supporters good side.
Posted by Dirk | October 15, 2008 2:09 PM