Presidential Persuasion

Today's New York Times provides an illuminating account of relationships between Barack Obama and his Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill. While the president has not forged the kind of close personal relationships with members of Congress that some of his predecessors had developed, the article reminds us that there is a tendency to overemphasize the president's ability to schmooze senators and representatives when judging a president's legislative record.

Obama may lack the political skills of Bill Clinton, but he still got health care reform through Congress. Having a strong majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate provided Obama a level of congressional support that Clinton never had. Focusing on presidential personality can lead to insufficient attention to the size of the president's majorities in Congress when assessing presidential effectiveness.

Comments

[JM]

I read this article. For the first time in a while (perhaps ever, despite voting for him twice) I was proud of Obama. He calls a meeting about a genuine humanitarian crisis, and Reid can't stop talking about Republicans blocking ambassadorship appointments, which I am sure Reid promised as favors to his crony friends long ago. Good for Obama for telling Reid to pipe down and stay on task.

[Adam]

David,

I find your argument strange. Obama's signature achievement cost him his majority, and in such circumstances, presidents are obliged to scramble a bit. By all accounts, Obama has not leveraged his increasingly slender legislative options with the kind of "soft power" that is the currency of Washington, D.C. And to the extent Obama's relations with his own party are weak, he has fewer options for resisting encroachments upon his priorities by the Republicans.

Whatever your opinion of the ACA, after it was passed there were still six years to go before Obama left office. A strategy that worked fine with huge majorities was in need of reconsideration no later than November 2010.

[Barry]

"By all accounts, Obama has not leveraged his increasingly slender legislative options with the kind of "soft power" that is the currency of Washington, D.C. "

There are people who actually study such things; they are called 'Political Scientists'. Their consensus is that the press overestimates the 'power of the bully pulpit. Examples include FDR, Johnson and Reagan - when their party held fewer seats in Congress, their ability to get things done diminished sharply.

Of course, there's an additional contrast as well. Bush II, for example, not only had a war to back him up, but also had policies which were 100% devoted to the elites, who supported them.