The Limits of Presidential Power

The recent events in Ukraine have helped put a variety of issues into perspective, many of which are only tangentially connected to crisis itself. One of the most interesting features of this discussion involves the limits of Presidential power. Many conservatives see  Obama as a weak leader, who could solve this crisis by simply showing a bit more "force." David Brooks' comments are typical.

Basically since Yalta we’ve had an assumption that borders are basically going to be borders and once that comes into question, if in Ukraine or in Crimea or anywhere else, then all over the world all bets are off. And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely — but a manhood problem in the Middle East.

[...]

Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough.

The problem with Brooks' statement is twofold. First, it assumes that there is no risk of overreaction. Obviously, that's ludicrous, and it requires a willful distortion of recent history to reach this conclusion. More importantly, this criticism masks a terrible misunderstanding the actual power of the presidency, and it's important to set that right. 

 

Calls of tyranny aside, the power of the president is actually quite limited in the American system of government. There's very little that he can do without the support of Congress, and it's telling that the places where Obama's tyranny "rings loudest" are precisely the exact same places where Congress relinquished authority wholeheartedly. You don't have the ongoing NSA scandal, for example, without Congress passing the Patriot Act.

And in this instance, you don't get anything done with Russia without Congressional approval. Thankfully, Congress passed an aid and sanctions package back in April. Considering that these are the primary source of pressure on Putin's government, and they remain the forceful measure in place, we should be happy.

I think most of us know this. After all, we all went to school and were taught that Congress passes the laws. So why do we pretend otherwise. Why do we believe, as you write, that some very marginal changes to regulation are somehow the key to a national economic revival? How could we fool ourselves into thinking that a country with terrible tax policy, no government investment, a failing education system, no competition in major industries and a two-tier class system that guarantees no demand will somehow emerge as an economic giant if a little extra smog allowed? Why, because we all want to subscribe to the "Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency." As Ezra Klein recently explained,

The Founding Fathers were rebelling against an out-of-control monarch. So they constructed a political system with a powerful legislature and a relatively weak executive. The result is that the US President has little formal power to make Congress do anything. He can't force Congress to vote on a bill. He can't force Congress to pass a bill. And even if he vetoes a bill Congress can simply overturn his veto. So in direct confrontations with Congress — and that describes much of American politics these days — the president has few options.

Green Lantern theorists don't deny any of this. They just believe that there's some vague combination of public speeches and private wheedling that the president can employ to bend Congress to his will. Ron Fournier, a prominent Green Lantern theorist, offers a fairly typical prescription for presidential success:

He could talk to the media and the public more often with a more compelling and sustained message. He could build enduring relationships in Washington rather than being so blatantly transactional with his time. He could work harder, and with more empathy, on Capitol Hill to find "win-win" opportunities with Republicans.

The problem with this is that the Green Lantern Theory isn't just false. It's often backwards. The basic idea is that more aggressive and consistent applications of presidential power will break down opposition. But political science research shows the truth is often just the opposite.

When the president takes a position on an issue the opposing party becomes far more likely to take the opposite position. In a clever study, political scientist Frances Lee proved this by looking at noncontroversial issues, like whether NASA should try and send a man to Mars. She built a database of eighty-six hundred Senate votes between 1981 and 2004. Typically, these votes fell along party lines just a third of the time. But but when the President took a clear position the likelihood of a party-line vote rose to more than half. In other words, when the president pushed on an issue the opposition party became more likely to oppose him.

The reason is simple: elections are zero-sum affairs. The more the American people perceive the president as successful the less likely they are to vote for the opposition in the next election. "If you're cooperating then it suggests to the public that things are working just fine," explains Lee. "And it undercuts the whole logic of your campaign against the president or the president's party's continuation in office."

The Green Lantern Theory also infantilizes Congress. Take this Maureen Dowd column in which she argues that it's actually the president's job to force Congress to behave, as if the most powerful and democratic branch of the American government is just a bunch of petulant children waiting for discipline:

It is his job to get them to behave. The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It's called leadership.

This kind of thing both lets Congress off the hook and confuses Americans about where the power actually lies in American politics — and thus about who to hold accountable.

I'm trying my best to stop writing about Presidential politics, but I also was a long-time believer in the Green Lantern Theory. It's hard to give up. But that doesn't change the truth of the issue. Criticizing the President for the state of American public policy is stupid. There is almost nothing that the President can accomplish without an act of Congress already in place.

It's also a little frightening. For all the problems in government right now, the executive branch isn't nearly as corrupted as Congress. Nor is it as hated or as corrupted. Do you want a major new wave of economic policy that grows the middle class? Focus on how Congress will pass it. Wait, Congress doesn't pass anything these days? Tough, that's the only group of people who will get something done.

 

The same goes for nearly every foreign policy issue. Especially in matters of peace and war, the President rarely operates outside of the scope provided to him from Congress. Obviously, the President is free to direct his administration to conduct diplomacy, but any meaningful measure requires an action of Congress.

This should make you pretty pessimistic, which is appropriate. Thanks to growing partisanship, corruption and an increasing focus on political gamesmanship, our Congress is the least effective that it has ever been. Conservatives, when they speak about President power and "strength" are blinding themselves to the truly important issues facing this country.

 

As my Dad always says, "we have a bought and sold Congress." Getting over this problem involves one of two things: either one side gets control of the presidency and a filibuster-proof majority in both chambers, or we need aggressive citizen action to remake the way we conduct our elections. I don't know if I will see the former in my lifetime, but thankfully Lawrence Lessig is leading the charge to address the latter. I have high hopes for the Mayday PAC, but to reform our political system, we also need to focus in on the fundamental problems. Empty posturing about "manhood" won't get us anywhere.