Balkinization: Obama’s Beef

Obama’s Beef

Guest Blogger

Jeffrey K. Tulis

Whether Senator Obama has a well worked out domestic policy agenda and a detailed understanding of foreign policy is a lingering concern of democrats who find his inspirational rhetoric short on specific analyses, proposals, and plans. This concern has provided occasion for Senator Clinton and others to revive Walter Mondale’s famous question to Gary Hart, taken from a then popular TV commercial for a hamburger, “where’s the beef?” Obama may be tempted respond to the question by offering detailed counter-proposals to Senator Clinton’s plans for health care, immigration, the economy, campaign finance and any other issue she chooses to highlight. This would be a mistake both as tactical choice in the primaries, and in light of his impressive understanding of the place of the presidency in the constitutional order.

Instead, Senator Obama should emphasize the finer cut of beef that is already implicit in his own vision for a new kind of politics and a new kind of presidential leadership.

Just beneath the surface of Obama’s call for a new kind of leadership that transcends previous partisan divisions and old habits of political contestation is a new constitutional theory – or, perhaps more accurately, a better understanding of our Constitution whose meaning has been lost over time and whose principal political institutions have begun to decay. In Obama’s vision, presidential success is not measured by how many detailed policy proposals he can ram through Congress. Rather, his vision sets a new standard, that presidential success will be measured by an improved functioning of the government as a whole. In this vision, the details of policy are not as important as the principles that guide policy. In this vision, it is less important to secure ones preferred version of a bill than it is to mobilize Congress to solve the problem for which the legislation was designed.

In contrast, all recent presidents, and especially Senator Clinton, understand the President as the chief legislator, as the person and the place where legislation is made. She seems incensed that anyone not as technically skilled as she in legislative craftsmanship would think they are as qualified for election to the presidency. Obama understands that although the president needs to be very knowledgeable about public policy, to demonstrate that knowledge, and even, as president, to offer legislative proposals to the Congress – he has an instinctive sense that his job is to lead, not to legislate.

Obama knows instinctively that Senator Clinton did not learn the major lesson from the failure of her health care plan at the beginning of her husband’s term. For Obama, the lesson is that one does not take over the role of Congress, in secret meetings of unelected friends and colleagues and then insist that the presidential product be given a mere seal of approval by the Congress of the United States. He knows that presidential leadership is much more than a matter of bargaining from a strong position but includes, as well, facilitating the work of others. Obama knows that his job will be to initiate and nurture a legislative process. He will offer a plan, to be sure. He will use his plan to illustrate the principles he wishes to guide legislative craftsmanship: that all Americans have access to health insurance and that it be affordable. He will make speeches and he will call, meet, and cajole members of Congress. But he will not substitute “administration” for “deliberation.” If as Congress deliberates it becomes clear that Senator Clinton’s plan accomplishes his principled objectives better than his own plan, he will embrace it, praise it, and praise her. Obama seems to understand that this sort of scenario would represent success not only because the nation’s health care system would be improved, but also because it would signify that the government, not just the presidency but the government as a whole, was not broken anymore. He would show the world that some meaningful vision of democracy was still workable.

Senator Clinton seems to have drawn a very different lesson from her previous failure. She thinks she failed because her defeated plan was not enough (as policy and as political savvy), and she has deployed her considerable “policy wonk” talents in designing a new one and criticizing the alternatives. Having done all that work over the last twelve years, she is in position to take better advantage of the presidential “honeymoon” period to ram her improved plan through Congress. She doesn’t seem to understand that her “success” would come at the expense of the polity as a whole, deepening the pathology of an administrative “republic” that no longer appreciates the beauty and benefit of legislative deliberation. It is ironic that Senator Clinton’s extraordinary talent as a legislator could further undermine the status of Congress in our republic as she imports that view of the world into the White House and misunderstands the true meaning of presidential leadership in the American constitutional order.

Senator Obama has the beef, Senator Clinton the hamburger.

Posted 9:01 AM by Guest Blogger [link]

Comments:

The President is not merely a passive facilitator, he or she is (or should be) a leader with his or her own plenary responsibilities.

The President implements nearly all foreign policy. Therefore, it would be nice to know what foreign policy a candidate intends to implement.

The Executive is the only branch with a single voice and the bully pulpit. Congress has well over 400 contradictory voices. By virtue of the structural advantages of the Executive, the President therefore also takes the lead in setting domestic policy. It would be nice to know what domestic policy the candidate intends to set with some level of specificity.

In sum, when the candidate is calling for "change," it would be nice to know specifically what changes he or she intends to implement. There is good change and there is bad change. Inquiring minds would like to know which the candidate has in mind.

However, I am a member of the GOP. Maybe we have different standards for our candidates. ;^)

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:25 AM

He will offer a plan, to be sure.

Obama's plan is here (pdf) (semi-detailed press release here).

A critique of the plan from a leading Democratic-leading blogger on the issue is here.

deepening the pathology of an administrative “republic” that no longer appreciates the beauty and benefit of legislative deliberation.

Well, maybe, unless your political beliefs are grounded in policy preferences, rather than aesthetic preferences.

# posted by

Elvis Elvisberg : 9:36 AM

I think Mr. Tulis' point is that the country might be better served if the Presidency were less ideologically driven. Mr. Tulis isn't saying that the vehement advocacy of politics isn't important, but that we might be better served by limiting it to the legislative branch. I.e. more Washington, less Adams and Jefferson.

The lesson from the Clinton health care debacle is that some of Hillary's reforms might have gone through if she had put forward ideas and encouraged Congress to deliberate rather than sending the Congress a finished bill, which sends the message that their role in drafting and deliberating is not longer needed.

It's about respect for constitutional roles. The abuse of recess appointments is a recent example. It would be nice to have a President who understood that power doesn't always need to be exerted. Recess appointments should be for emergencies, not subverting the will of the people's representatives. This sort of respect for process and tradition over getting one's way seems to be what Obama promises and I'm pretty excited about it.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:00 PM

The lesson from the Clinton health care debacle is that some of Hillary's reforms might have gone through if she had put forward ideas and encouraged Congress to deliberate rather than sending the Congress a finished bill, which sends the message that their role in drafting and deliberating is not longer needed.

My understanding is that the Republicans decided, in advance of any bill, that they would oppose ANY health care reform proposed by Clinton. Whatever Hilary's mistakes -- and I'm not letting her off the hook entirely -- the failure to include people who had already decided to oppose the whole concept is not one of them.

This doesn't mean the rest of your comment falls to the ground; I just don't think the particular example is a good one.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:21 PM

However, I am a member of the GOP. Maybe we have different standards for our candidates. ;^)

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:25 AM

If George W Bush is an indication of your "standards", you might want to rethink them.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:28 PM

I fully agree. The problem with the President offering one (detailed) proposal and one only is that it any one proposal will have its flaws and be relatively easy to knock down. And once that one proposal is knocked down, there will be no alternative except the status quo.

Frankly, I would live to see the President offer two or three options, expressing a preference, yes, but making clear that it is only a preference, not an ultimatum. Anyone who tries to knock down all alternatives (as opposed to pressing for one or another) will be making clear that they are really just defending the status quo.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 3:32 PM

Thank you Mr. Tulis! As a woman with experience developing and administering innovative government policy and as a lifetime student of Presidential politics, I salute your understanding of the nature of effective Presidential leadership.

The hold partisanship has gained on our body politic since Reagan and now taken for granted in a post-Rovian environment is somewhat evident in the other comments on your article and blares in most of the media's approach to the campaign.

The demand for detailed policy and program proposals as part of the campaign amounts essentially to a way to continue dividing the electorate by vested interest. Obviously, Hillary is taking advantage of this pseudo-democratic view of the Presidency by continually touting her "experience," and acting wonky on the trail. How many of her listeners will be inspired to get involved in the government when they listen to her? Her approach simply feeds a cynical and jaded electorate's propensity to be taken care of. And, incidentally, the press and pundits tout the value of detail perhaps because it gives them more to set up discussion and debate about.

The vast value of the leadership envisioned by Obama is not only that the process of developing policy will enlist the ideas and values of those who will be tasked with making it work and will thus be more effective, it will also inspire and provide space for those who are interested to participate.

Moreover, I believe that Obama has laid out the essence of what he means by CHANGE. The most significant change is in the process and it will:

Clean up electoral funding and make it transparent, thereby reducing the obligation to fashion policy for special interests and opening up the process;

Make agency budgets available on the internet so that citizens will be empowered in influencing decisions;

Be honest and candid with the American people instead of taking guidance from polls;

Be clear and civil in communications;

Work to overcome barriers to opportunity for all;

Listen as well as talk in both domestic and international venues and adopt measured and well-targeted responses when needed.

This is from memory. Obama's website is so busy at the moment that I was unable to get on to verify the "details."

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:56 PM

What is the role of the President?

Beyond the truncated, buzzword-inflected, competing monologues that generally pass for "political debate," it is heartening to sense that Barack Obama's candidacy really might raise this question in the mind of the "average voter." It is an especially important question, never more important in our national history, as democracy shivers under the looming shadow of the "l'etat-c'est-moi" monarchism of Little King George, Lord Bruce, and their courtiers.

# posted by

manonfyre : 4:54 PM