America is Not Ungovernable

[KRonn]

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/02/19/ungovernable__nonsense

Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ungovernable? Nonsense.
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board -- and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

It's 2010 and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health care reform -- lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked The New Republic. Guess the answer.

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties ... with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.

Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

And then, of course, there's the filibuster, the newest liberal bete noire. "Don't blame Mr. Obama," writes Paul Krugman of the president's failures. "Blame our political culture instead. ... And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."

Ungovernable, once again. Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically to block one Bush (43) judicial nomination after another. Back then, Democrats touted it as an indispensable check on overweening majority power. Well, it still is. Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: "Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama's (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. ... But in this case there's a simpler explanation: Barack Obama's job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed."

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections -- Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That's not a structural defect. That's a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself -- despite the special interests -- through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

[garbon]

Poor Obama.

[grumbler]

The stimulus - $200+ billion smaller and more tax cuts than the House or Pelosi wanted.  Credit card regulation that was significantly weaker than what Pelosi wanted.  Cap and trade: shelved.  Healthcare considerably to the right of what Pelosi and most of the House want.  What's been her cracking victory over this White House?

Pelosi is not competent to deliver even the votes of Democratic congressmen, so she ends up losing (not to the White House, but to temporary coalitions of Congressmen who want to see something happen - or not).  This leads to...

It's worth remembering that there have been a number of stories that Pelosi is very unhappy with the White House (she has beef with Emanuel from years back) because she thinks in terms of legislation she's cut out and matters less than even one Senator.

which further weakens her.  It is a death spiral.

I'm not convinced she's wrong and I'm not convinced she deserves the amount of  vitriol she gets.

She gets vitriol because she sounds like a moron and cannot deliver under extremely favorable conditions.  If leadership were dynamite, she could not blow her nose.

[grumbler]

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt.

Obama dailed because the "health care plan" lacked one essential feature:  the quality of being a plan.  Obama never proposed any plan, and congress never even considered any plans.  Obama expressed a hope and congress considered a mass of compromises and buyouts.

In a system with a strong presidency, smart but weak presidents will not prosper even as well as strong but stupid ones.  That's been our lesson.

[Hansmeister]

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt.

Obama dailed because the "health care plan" lacked one essential feature:  the quality of being a plan.  Obama never proposed any plan, and congress never even considered any plans.  Obama expressed a hope and congress considered a mass of compromises and buyouts.

In a system with a strong presidency, smart but weak presidents will not prosper even as well as strong but stupid ones.  That's been our lesson.

Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak.  A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.

[The Brain]

It's not impossible to govern America. Merely pointless.

[Admiral Yi]

I was thumbing through the Ted Kennedy memoir, happened to be the section on passing Civil Rights.  I have always been curious about the nuts and bolts of LBJ's masterful manipulation of the legislative process and what lessons Obama could take from it; unfortunately this book gave no specifics apart from the trick of getting Mansfield on board by pubicly calling him a great leader.

Anyone have any better insights, maybe from that ginourmos LBJ bio that came out a while back?

[grumbler]

Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak.  A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.

Then we should change his nick from Obamateur to Obameister.

[Hansmeister]

If the author's analysis is so incorrect, why did the health care bill not pass?

The author's analysis is incorrect, but the fact that there's a lack of broad-spectrum support isn't.  Obama can go on about healthcare until he's blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is he has no authority before the bill comes to him for a veto.  Also, given the behavior of about-facing senators like Joe Lieberman, I don't think healthcare is the best example of the system operating as it should.

Call it a flaw in the system if you'd like, but his inability to ram through his campaign promises is only proof that the system of checks and balances is intact.

In the realm of healthcare, high-profile Democrats wanted to push a bill they knew was crappy through just to satisfy campaign promises.  On the other hand, high-profile Republicans wanted to show they could still successfully block a "liberal" agenda.  The middle ground was critical, and swayed by the sheer crappiness of the bill (which, IIRC, was NOT drafted by Pelosi).

The lousy bills is an issue, and I think it's one that needs to be addressed soon, but I find it a little silly that people are complaining about Obama not taking on yet another issue after so many have complained that he's taken on too many causes.

More telling than the crappy bill failing the first time, though, is the Republican blanket refusal to compromise on healthcare.  A failing bill is one thing, but the Republicans using the marginal electoral gains to completely block out the issue and neglect a majority of Americans' concern for fixing a broken system is inexcusable.  What they're doing is refusing to admit to the basic principle of democracy and allowing themselves to be ruled by the majority, both in political terms, and in terms of the voting base.

This is laughable whining.  Bush was able to push through most of his campaign promises because he worked with both parties in Congress to get it done.

When was the last time Obama lowered himself to talk to Republicans about health care?  March 5th.  That's right, in nearly a year Obama has refused to even talk to the GOP, and now whines that they won't just roll over and swallow an insanely bad bill for the greater glory of Obama.  This is just absolutely pathetic.

[Hansmeister]

Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak.  A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.

Then we should change his nick from Obamateur to Obameister.

Don't quit your day job.

[Jaron]

Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak.  A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.

Then we should change his nick from Obamateur to Obameister.

[Sheilbh]

Anyone have any better insights, maybe from that ginourmos LBJ bio that came out a while back?

Read the book.  Have some pictures:




Speaking to Congress:

[Admiral Yi]

Close talking passes controversial bills.  Thanks Shelf, useful lesson.

[Sheilbh]

Close talking passes controversial bills.  Thanks Shelf, useful lesson.

That's not close talking it's dominating their space, they're being told who's in charge.  As a Senator someone once watched him working on Richard Russell and saw him kiss him, tower over him, shout at him, call him 'daddy', held both hands on the wall so Russell couldn't get away - and more.  That was in less than 5 minutes.

Edit: Incidentally Obama's problem in terms of healthcare wasn't legislation I don't think.  I mean no President's got so far in legislative terms.  The final Senate bill looked a lot like Obama's Presidential plan - with two important exceptions that he campaigned against - now that doesn't happen by accident.  Where Obama failed was in the campaigning style.  He failed to do the permanent campaign thing and to keep people on board and convince them.

This is the irony of Obama's first year I think.  In the campaign everyone knew this was a guy who could talk and who could convince people, but could he govern.  My honest opinion, though, is that he's been good at the stuff people were worried about.  I think the cool administrative stuff has gone well - again this is in my opinion - I think he's failed to keep people inspired and with him and so in the nation healthcare was lost and that's what hurt it in the legislature.

[Jaron]

Does Obama need to be like Johnson?

and didn't Johnson arrange JFKs assassination? (allegedly)