Getty Images
Obama announces the results of the bin Laden mission in May 2011.
For many pundits watching the lack of progress on sequestration cuts, there was a reflexive instinct to blame President Obama. If he'd get congressional Republicans to do what he wants them to do, the president would demonstrate "leadership." It's a sad argument that overlooks separation of powers, Civics 101, and the basic structure of party politics, but we've heard it quite a bit anyway.
On Friday, however, after Obama said he's tried everything he can to reach a fair compromise with congressional Republicans, National Journal's Ron Fournier marveled that the president "can handle bin Laden," but not House Speaker John Boehner.
In fairness, it's sometimes hard to tell when Fournier is kidding, and I honestly have no idea if a comment like this was made in jest. But I don't think so -- Fournier has been one of the more assertive pundits insisting in recent weeks that Republican intransigence must somehow be Obama's fault. It stands to reason that the National Journal writer genuinely doesn't know how and why the president can take charge on national security, but struggle with Congress.
Indeed, if I had to guess, I'd say low-information voters nationwide may have the same question. If Obama has "worked his will" on national security, ending the war in Iraq, decimating al Qaeda, launching the bin Laden mission, helping take down the Gadhafi regime, etc., why does the president have so much trouble reaching simple fiscal compromises with lawmakers?
The answer has a lot to do with where presidents have broad power -- and where they don't.
To Fournier's question, Obama didn't exactly "handle" Osama bin Laden, so much as ordered the strike that killed Osama bin Laden. The president, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, reviewed the intelligence, weighed his options, consulted with his team, and made a decision. That decision was then carried out, exactly as the president had instructed.
And why can't Obama demonstrate similar leadership qualities when dealing with Congress? Well, probably because it's wise not to think of the duly-elected Speaker of the House as a dangerous adversary, but rather, as a constitutional officer who helps lead a co-equal branch of the American government.
When it comes to national security and foreign policy, a president has ample opportunities to "take charge." It's baked into the cake -- he or she has unique responsibilities and powers. We can and should debate the appropriate limits on those powers, and how best they should be subjected to checks and balances, but for the modern presidency, the scope of authority over the use of force is quite broad.
When President Obama, for example, decided to give the green light to the mission in Abbottabad, Republicans were given no filibuster opportunities; there was no consideration of the "Hastert Rule" in the House; and there were no pleas for votes or need for legislative arm-twisting.
For good or ill, the process is incredibly efficient -- the administration presents a chief executive with information; the chief executive makes a decision; that decision is executed. Period. Full stop.
The legislative process, whether pundits like it or not, includes infinitely more choke points at which progress can come to an immediate stop. The executive branch can no sooner tell the legislative branch what to do than vice versa -- the president is not Congress' boss and the Speaker can ignore a president's wishes for any reason.
And here's the kicker: this is a feature, not a bug. We don't want an American system of government in which a president can "handle" a Congress the way he or she "handles" a terrorist threat. Checks and balances, warts notwithstanding, are to be celebrated, not denigrated.
Does this mean a president will have greater opportunities for unilateral success on foreign policy? Yes. Should we hope a president has similar authority to give orders to Congress? Absolutely not.
Leave a Comment:
I know it's not ..."Legal"....but...the idea of a drone strike on Congress does possess a certainly appeal sometimes...
just saying...
Maybe it would also cause the Republicans to re-think the advisability of drone strikes...
He's not calling for a drone strike, which I agree is appealing, but rather that Seal Team Six get sent in. I don't have a preference.
There are days when I think a 50-megaton air burst 1,500 feet above the Washington Monument would accomplish a helluva lot of necessary governmental reform.
Great minds think alike.
Drones, SEALs,nukes- so many options, so little time. . .
Could always have the CIA put some Dioxin in Boehner's "Coffee"...
What color do you get when you mix green and orange?
Drone strikes and Seal Team Six missions......but never torture where you get what you need.....that would be wrong, death by drone is much more humane.
green + orange = brown... we might be able to restore John to his original shade!
Even though Fournier apparently finds "handling Bin Laden" similar to "handling Speaker Boehner", I find joking about assassination of political rivals unsavory and unfunny.
I don't want to think ill of you, but this thread disgusts me.
Please stop this. Thank you.
pid, it was Fournier who suggested implicitly that Boehner be taken out. Don't get so bent out of shape here. Take your problem to Fournier.
That's an excuse for people here to sink to his level, why?
Ron Fournier marveled that the president "can handle bin Laden," but not House Speaker John Boehner.
So, is Fournier implying that Boehner has something in common with bin Laden, like being a wildly out of control force bent of destroying America?
Or is it just that Boehner is behaving like an eight year old and should be treated as such?
I think it is beyond time to consider the Mr Boehner a threat to America and our security.
He does appear to appease the "whim" of Congressional Republicans entirely too much and with little to show for it. If I were Obama, which thank gawd I'm not, I would use the bully pulpit and shame these bastards with their own rhetoric and their own false and ridiculous statements on national television. No time like the present, right?! He certainly doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, right? Maybe he could get the press in on how to investigate and report facts again! It's a two-fer!
I am very glad I now know through your posting Mr. Benen that one Ron Fournier is currently affiliated with the National Journal.
He is a much better fit for that partisan rag than he was at AP, where he thoroughly used that august brand to sully others and run suspect copy for the muckymucks he's been wont to shill for, for all these years! -Kevo
Republicans are doing a preemptory strike against Obama and the Dems before they can characterize the Republicans as incapable of governing. That should be the main theme for the 2014 elections. Every manufactured crisis should be used against the Republicans. At this point Obama looks like the reasonable man who wants to compromise while Republicans are unwilling to compromise. That point will not be lost on the voters.
I agree with what you're saying, Mike, but I'd go a step further. The criticism of President Obama that he "isn't leading" would be fair if these were normal circumstances and everyone actually wanted to find a reasonable solution. But we know that the GOP is being deliberately disruptive.
As Rachel said in her Daily Show appearance, where a party wants to claim that government isn't working (especially when progressives are the party "in power"), sand-bagging government plays to their strength. They want voters to conclude that the Tea Party is right: it's the Democrat government that's the problem. It's all in the messaging.
Now if you follow the polls that a majority of Americans want the balanced approach to deficit reduction, that's a step in the right direction. But pundits repeating bald-faced lies that this impasse is the President's fault really isn't helping.
I get annoyed, more like angry, when the media portrays Obama and the Dems as being just as culpable as Republicans for the impasse. Nothing could be further from the truth and the media knows it. They should stop trying to appear nonpartisan by blaming both sides because it mischaracterizes the situation. And the worst offenders are those TV show hosts on Sunday morning talk shows.
Something great happens: Thank God for those fantastic Republicans officals we elected.
Something horrible happens: It's all the black man's fault because he hates America.
It's the same sh!t, different days.
Way to play the race card, because America and democrats were always behind Bush 100%, and he never gets the blame for anything.
The GOTP don't agree that "evolution" happened, so why would you believe that they can even understand Civics 101? What WE have are people in government, public office that haven't a clue about Civics nor their role/job. In adherence to party ideology these people see nothing else. Oh and that corporate owned lamestream media - those "journalists" are so busy pretending to be even-handed and "objective" they just go along with what their puppet masters tell them is "truth"!
A better question for Mr. Fournier to ask is: Why ca'nt Boehner handle Cantor and his tea party caucus. Could it be that just like the President, he ca'nt roller skate in a buffalo herd?
The level of political illiteracy in the American public is appalling. Even back when I was in public school and they had "civics" as a class, it was a senior year elective, and the majority never took it and a majority of those who did slept through it. The Founders set this government up with the assumption that it could only operate with an informed public (proving you should never assume anything since it makes an "ass" of "u" and "me").
This past weekend I was out at a museum where I do presentations on history subjects. I was having breakfast with two of the speakers, WW2 vets - who happened to be one a Democrat and one a Republican (the old-fashioned kind, with a brain) - they both were very knowledgeable about how the government worked and who could do what as we discussed the sequester situation. They had learned that going to rural public schools in the 1930s, and as one of them said, the teacher made sure everybody in the class understood it because she said it was important. My associate in doing the presentations is about 18 years younger than me and no dummy (in fact quite knowledgeable on the stuff we do), and he was popping off with this sort of completely stupid stuff about who could do what. The difference was the kind of education the three generations of us had received, and to me it shows the dangerous future we face, when even the intelligent ones coming after, are not educated in how the system they live in is supposed to work. This sort of situation makes Americans ripe for the next Julius Caesar, and they would probably welcome him as the Romans did, for "solving their problems."
When I was in middle school and high school in the 1950s we were required to take American history in the 8th grade and again when a senior in high school. A unit on civics including a thorough study of the U.S. Constitution and the Texas State Constitution were included. Both these courses were full year courses. In the 9th grade we took Social Studies which included government. Somewhere along the line, I think it was in the 7th grade we had at least a semester of Texas history.
When I was in California in the 4th grade we had a whole year of California histroy.
I believe students are still required to take a "Civics" class in school. But there is no requirement that they understand the material. Tests have been reduced the lowest common denominator so that most, if not all students, pass the course. Teachers are not allowed to flunk students because the parents get angry and blame the teacher rather than themselves for failing their children. Standards have been lowered to accommodate the demands of parents and school boards so that schools can say they are doing a better job. Yet despite all the years of modern education, some people slaughter the English language. For example, I heard a girl on Judge Judy say "We were knowing that...." I want to scream when I hear this. It makes me wonder how these people get high school diplomas.
bflynch, my kids had an excellent Texas history teacher in junior high school, but somehow she got crosswise of the principal and was fired. It was a shame. But now it looks like the infamous TX State Board of Ejumakashun has screwed up the curriculum anyhow so no matter what kind of teacher you have, it won't to any good. It's what happens when people with an agenda and no integrity get power.
dkm: So sad. Texas used to have good schools, and local school systems had a lot of discretion as to curriculum.
So...is Fournier suggesting that President Obama send a team of Navy Seals to assassinate Boehner? That's an interesting idea.
Sounds like it, doesn't it?
I really like this!
Steve, thank you for your voice of sanity. While it might be nice in the short-run if President Obama had the power to impose his will on congress for the greater good of the country, the long term harm to our system of checks and balances would eventually outweigh the short-term good.
If elected officials are causing harm through their policy making, it's up to the voters to the replace them.
The voters will only replace their elected officials if they perceive them as making bad policy.
While President Obama and his team can't run roughshod over congress, they do have the ability to influence public perception, which should be their focus if they want to achieve their policy goals.
Although Mr. Fournier implicitly advocates for taking out Boehner by some means, I'm not sure that it would do much good. Boehner has absolutely no control over the House anyhow, so replacing him would make no difference. He's like a cardboard cutout of a House Speaker that is substituted for the real thing. The House would continue to be a barrier to improvement in the American scheme of things so if Fournier wants change based on taking out someone, then the whole Tea Party caucus needs to go before any change occurs.
I believe that some of the belief that the President can impose his will stems from the idea of the "imperial Presidency" that Reagan and Bush II favored.
I believe it was our old friend of democracy, George W. Bush, who said that it would be a lot easier if he was a dictator.
It's Boehner who can't lead. He can't even control his own caucus.