America is Not Ungovernable

[jimmy olsen]

Garbon will be pleased that Cost lays much of the blame for the current situation on Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/02/america_is_not_ungovernable.html

February 08, 2010
America is Not Ungovernable
by Jay Cost

Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America's "political instability" was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed "obstructionist Republicans," "spineless Democrats," and an "incoherent public" for the problem.

Nonsense. America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.

Let's acknowledge that governing the United States of America is an extremely difficult task. Intentionally so. When designing our system, the Founders were faced with a dilemma. How to empower a vigorous government without endangering liberty or true republicanism? On the one hand, George III's government was effective at satisfying the will of the sovereign, but that will had become tyrannical. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged the rights of the states, but so much so that the federal government was incapable of solving basic problems.

The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.

The end result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind - but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.

The President's two major initiatives - cap-and-trade and health care - have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That's a good thing.

It's not accurate to blame this on the Republicans. From Arlen Specter's defection to Scott Brown's swearing in, Democrats had total control over the policy-making process. The only recourse the Republicans had was the First Amendment. They used it well, but don't let it be said that the President lacked access to it. Given Mr. Obama's bully pulpit and his omnipresence on the national stage, his voice has been louder than anybody's. If Mr. Obama has lost the public debate to the beleaguered rump that is the congressional GOP, he has nobody to blame but himself.

It's not accurate to blame this on "spineless Democrats," i.e. rank-and-file legislators who balked at the various solutions offered by Mr. Obama. Moderate Democrats might have defected because they were worried about their jobs - but the point of popular elections is to link the personal interests of legislators with the interests of their constituents. It often fails to work - but in a situation where "spineless Democrats" clearly voted with their districts, it seems to have been working pretty well. One might argue that they should have shown some leadership - voted for unpopular bills because they were good for the country. But ask those thirty to forty House Democratic defectors on the health care, cap-and-trade, and jobs bills whether they thought the bills were good for the country, and you'll hear a different answer than the one Newsweek is quick to give.

It's not accurate to blame this on the people. This country is most certainly divided, but not deeply so. Consider, for instance, the enormous goodwill that greeted Mr. Obama upon his inauguration. It is not tenable to suggest that there was no way to turn that into a broad consensus for policy solutions.

The responsibility for the government's failure in the last year rests with President Obama. Two significant blunders stand out.

First, President Obama has installed Nancy Pelosi as de facto Prime Minister - giving her leave to dominate not only the House, but also the entire domestic policy agenda. The indefatigable Speaker Pelosi has taken advantage of the President's laissez-faire attitude by governing from the left.

That's not to say that the left has been happy with the domestic proposals that have come up for a vote. Instead, the point is that policy has consistently been built from the left - thanks in no small part to the very liberal chairs of key committees - with compromises made to win just enough centrist votes to get passage. On the jobs bill, the health care bill, and the cap-and-trade bill, the Democrats won only narrow victories due to mass defections on their own side. Almost all of these defections were from the center. Faced with a choice between losing a moderate or a liberal, the Speaker has consistently chosen to sacrifice the moderate.

It's easy to blame the Senate for inactivity - but the problem is the House. It has consistently passed legislation that is too far to the left for the Senate and the country. Ultimate responsibility rests with the President, whose expressed indifference toward policy details has allowed the more vigorous House Democrats, led by an extraordinarily vigorous Speaker, to dominate. That the President consistently praised the House and blamed the Senate in his State of the Union address suggests that he remains unaware of this problem.

The President's second major failing has been his stubborn insistence on comprehensive reforms. Perhaps this is due to his inexperience in the federal lawmaking process, or his extraordinary vanity, or both. Still, this has been a grave mistake. If the truly great Henry Clay could not pass the Compromise of 1850 through the Congress in a single package, what made Barack Obama think he could sign comprehensive energy and health care reforms?

President Obama's desire for comprehensive legislation seriously damaged the chances for bipartisanship, given his decision to let Nancy Pelosi and her allies write the bills. Republican "extremism" is an easy rhetorical foil - but when we're talking about Mike Castle and Olympia Snowe voting against the President, it fails to explain the full story. Bipartisanship implies legislators with different world views working together. The larger a bill's scope, the more likely it favors one worldview over another, and the less likely it will attract bipartisan support. With an extremely liberal Speaker and a supporting cast of left wing committee chairs running the process, comprehensive legislation was bound to favor heavily the liberal worldview. Even the most moderate of Republicans would always have trouble with that. In fact, thirty to forty House Democrats have defected on the President's key items, meaning that the bipartisan position has been opposition to President Obama. This has made it difficult for a centrist public to support reforms. With very limited information on specifics, the public took unanimous Republican and substantial moderate Democratic opposition as cues about the merits of the bills. Public opposition is what ultimately ended the Democratic supermajority - in Massachusetts, of all places.

Both of these failures get back to the idea that this country can only be led effectively when there is a broad coalition supporting her leaders. That requires those leaders to have a breadth of vision that this President has so far lacked. He has allowed a very liberal Speaker to lead the House too far to the left, and he has demanded comprehensive reforms that were destined to alienate a significant portion of the country.

He has been narrow, not broad. He has been partial, not post-partisan. He has been ideological, not pragmatic. No number of "eloquent" speeches can alter these facts. This is why his major initiatives have failed, why his net job approval has dropped 50 points in 12 months, and why he is substantially weaker now than he was a year ago.

This strategy might have made sense if the country was really in the midst of a "liberal moment." But it is not. While the President won a decisive victory in 2008, his congressional majority in both chambers depends entirely upon members whose constituents voted for John McCain. In fact, the President's election 16 months ago was one of the most polarizing in recent history. This remains a divided country, which creates complications in a system such as ours. The President should have recognized this, and governed with a view to building a broad coalition. But he has not.

America is not ungovernable. Barack Obama has so far failed to govern it.

[Fate]

Pelosi controls shit. She can pass the most liberal bills in the world and it won't do a damn thing given that they have to accept Senate language or else lose that precious 60th vote. Comparing her power to that of a prime minister is ludicrous. Although she is a favoraite target of GOP ire, so right leaning blogs like RealClearPolitics must exaggerate her influence in order to justify the fixation.

[Grallon]

It is Obama's fault again? 




G.

[DontSayBanana]

This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work.  Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate.  Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.

Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.

[Lndhand]

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

[Lndhand]

This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work.  Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate.  Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.

Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.

Why did they need the Republican's at all?

[DontSayBanana]

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.

[Lndhand]

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.

Thanks for the reply and I agree with many of your observations.  I find it difficult to blame the Republicans though because the Democrats had the ability to pass the law without their input (correct?).  I could be mistaken, but in essence people seem to be saying that Republicans are to blame for not stepping into the shoes of Democrats who would not follow their own party's agenda so that a bill could get done.  For the record, I am no Republican homer.  My voting record of late has been Gore, Kerry and McCain.  I just find it amazing that with the White House, the Senate and the House all in Democratic hands the Republicans are to blame for no healthcare reform bill.     

[jimmy olsen]

This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work.  Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate.  Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.

Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.

Pelosi and the liberal leadership in the House are the ones responsible for the contents of major bills even if an other congressman is the one who introduces them. They're the ones who've made the decision to gain liberal votes at the expense of moderate ones. Obama may not have any authority in the house but he had immense political influence. He could have pressured the House to do things differently instead of giving Pelosi and the House leadership free reign.

[Berkut]

This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work.  Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate.  Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.

Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.

Why did they need the Republican's at all?

They didn't - the failure to get anything done is because the Dems running things have not managed to sell their ideas to the middle, and that includes both Dems and Republicans.

They thought they didn't need to, and so didn't bother trying. Now that they realize that was a mistake, blaming it on the Republicans is a handy scapegoat. Where the republicans obstrucionist? Of course they were - but if that had meant that the Republicans were going against the will of the majority of the people (which is typically centrist and moderate) it would be them looking at losing more races and their power declining, rather than the other way around.

[DontSayBanana]

They didn't - the failure to get anything done is because the Dems running things have not managed to sell their ideas to the middle, and that includes both Dems and Republicans.

They thought they didn't need to, and so didn't bother trying. Now that they realize that was a mistake, blaming it on the Republicans is a handy scapegoat. Where the republicans obstrucionist? Of course they were - but if that had meant that the Republicans were going against the will of the majority of the people (which is typically centrist and moderate) it would be them looking at losing more races and their power declining, rather than the other way around.

Partially true.  You're ignoring the vast array of polling that showed popular support for healthcare reform.  But the devil's in the details; the Democrats lost support for their methods of trying to ram a bill through with the most concessions possible to everybody.  What happened to that bill was not compromise, it was totally disorganized because everybody involved wanted to defend their little piece of the legislation.  Stupak, Lieberman, and Snowe in particular come to mind as forcing the compromise to be non-viable.

I'm not trying to come across as a Democrat apologist here, but the Republicans have been just as strident in denying any share in the blame as the Democrats have been in placing all of the blame on the Republicans, and both have been getting on my nerves.

[Berkut]

They didn't - the failure to get anything done is because the Dems running things have not managed to sell their ideas to the middle, and that includes both Dems and Republicans.

They thought they didn't need to, and so didn't bother trying. Now that they realize that was a mistake, blaming it on the Republicans is a handy scapegoat. Where the republicans obstrucionist? Of course they were - but if that had meant that the Republicans were going against the will of the majority of the people (which is typically centrist and moderate) it would be them looking at losing more races and their power declining, rather than the other way around.

Partially true.  You're ignoring the vast array of polling that showed popular support for healthcare reform.  But the devil's in the details; the Democrats lost support for their methods of trying to ram a bill through with the most concessions possible to everybody.  What happened to that bill was not compromise, it was totally disorganized because everybody involved wanted to defend their little piece of the legislation.  Stupak, Lieberman, and Snowe in particular come to mind as forcing the compromise to be non-viable.

I'm not trying to come across as a Democrat apologist here, but the Republicans have been just as strident in denying any share in the blame as the Democrats have been in placing all of the blame on the Republicans, and both have been getting on my nerves.

Oh, I do think the republicans have been completely obstructionist - but I don't think that should come as any surprise - of course they are - the republicans these days are a disaster, and pretty much operating under rather narrow and silly "we are against whatever they are for" mode.

But that is to be expected, even if it is rather annoying.

The republicans, however, could not really succeed with this obstructionism if the Dems didn't decide to try to get it all, rather than governing in a manner that the reflected actual public sentiment, which is, as usual, rather moderate and centrist. Instead they went nuts and tried to ram through every little ultra-left wet dream pork project they could come up with, including a health care reform package that turned into something that nobody actually wanted. The stim package was the ebst example of this - they knew they had support for pretty radical spending, and they went nuts like a 4 year old in a candy store who got a hold of their moms credit card.

Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.

[DontSayBanana]

Oh, I do think the republicans have been completely obstructionist - but I don't think that should come as any surprise - of course they are - the republicans these days are a disaster, and pretty much operating under rather narrow and silly "we are against whatever they are for" mode.

But that is to be expected, even if it is rather annoying.

The republicans, however, could not really succeed with this obstructionism if the Dems didn't decide to try to get it all, rather than governing in a manner that the reflected actual public sentiment, which is, as usual, rather moderate and centrist. Instead they went nuts and tried to ram through every little ultra-left wet dream pork project they could come up with, including a health care reform package that turned into something that nobody actually wanted. The stim package was the ebst example of this - they knew they had support for pretty radical spending, and they went nuts like a 4 year old in a candy store who got a hold of their moms credit card.

Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.

Ah, then that sounds like we're arguing the same side or close to it.  Personally, I'd prefer to see a few Democrats replaced with more moderate counterparts, and a few of the extreme left replaced with moderate Republicans; supermajorities are silly because they fail in situations like healthcare where the populace is nearly evenly divided.  Without a supermajority, the two sides are at least forced to come to discussion to achieve any kind of agenda.

[KRonn]

Oh, I do think the republicans have been completely obstructionist - but I don't think that should come as any surprise - of course they are - the republicans these days are a disaster, and pretty much operating under rather narrow and silly "we are against whatever they are for" mode.

But that is to be expected, even if it is rather annoying.

The republicans, however, could not really succeed with this obstructionism if the Dems didn't decide to try to get it all, rather than governing in a manner that the reflected actual public sentiment, which is, as usual, rather moderate and centrist. Instead they went nuts and tried to ram through every little ultra-left wet dream pork project they could come up with, including a health care reform package that turned into something that nobody actually wanted. The stim package was the ebst example of this - they knew they had support for pretty radical spending, and they went nuts like a 4 year old in a candy store who got a hold of their moms credit card.

Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.

Agreed with pretty much all, including the Repubs didn't really do anything to deserve their gains, but just are now the other choice. The unique, new thing may be that people seem to really be looking at things (politics, parties, legislation processes) quite differently and it seems there's a demand for more accountable governing, legislation and such. It's still hard to expect real change in how legislation gets done with all these entrenched politicians and views, but both parties are at least getting some hits upside the heads.

[Faeelin]

Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.

Hrmm. Have you seen this from Nate Silver?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/republicans-not-obama-more-often-on.html