I've been thinking about President Obama's relationship to the House and Senate leadership for the last couple of days, and Triple 'P''s last post brought up an interesting point that I wanted to touch on (and I really need to write a response to P's very detailed posting on the stimulus bill imbroglio from early February).
It was noted that the President's speech earlier this week was a (largely) nonpartisan affair, and P observed that the President's efforts to reach across the aisle, in combination with his general demeanor helps him see just why the Republican's lionize Reagan (brief aside: Reagan is the 'best' Republican president ever? His achievements top those of Lincoln? Really?).
It was that very nonpartisan tack that got my attention. P and I had a debate several months ago on how successful then soon-t0-be President Obama would be in implementing his agenda. No surprise, I was more reticent than he. One of the points P raised at the time was his belief that President Obama would rope the Senate and House to his will, or, more prosaically, that he wouldn't allow them to drive policy. I don't recall if I offered my opinion on that belief or not, but I felt that this was in no way a sure thing.
One of my key concerns over the President, and it's one that I admittedly developed after reading one too many John Kass opinion pieces in the Chicago Tribune, is that the President has long had a key personality characteristic that I've also identified in myself, and have strove over the last few years to begin modulating. That is a desire to see all viewpoints of an issue, and to craft a decision that appeals to everyone. Now that sounds nice, but this characteristic can also be phrased thusly: The tendency to roll over.
As much as I respect and genuinely like him, the President has never been what one might call a profile in courage. While in the Illinois Senate, he very obediently towed the party line (correct me if I'm missing something in his State House experience here P), and certainly never gave Emil Jones any trouble. Now, this can be viewed as biding his time and building his power base; it certainly worked for Al Smith as he worked his way through Tammany Hall around the turn of the last century in a much more corrupt atmosphere (and Smith himself was certainly more than a _bit_ corrupt, unlike the President). Still, absent any evidence to the contrary, I have the unmistakable impression that President Obama isn't able to put his foot down all that often.
This belief has been accenuated by the stimulus bill. P, you noted in the "I'm not in the tank for Obama...." post that this is really a House bill, rather than one from the White House. You also asked why the President doesn't simply "put the screws to his own party", given that he has a mandate why they, contrary to the rhetoric, do not. I'm asking the same question. Months ago we argued over whether President Obama would bring the congressional leadership to heel. Right now it seems that they're driving him. Perhaps this will change as the administration gets its legs under it, but as of the end of February, 2009, it looks to me as though President Obama is continuing in a fine tradition of deferring to others at every vital juncture.
...
...
...
A brief addendum. All that being said, I remain impressed that the administration itself isn't held hostage by the far left. The very fact that the Left is wailing and gnashing their teeth in frustration and contemplating new protests (told ya they'd go off the deep end P; I don't think it matters though, as the President has solid support among the mainstream) gives me pause in my previous analysis. President Obama's cabinet selection was, by and large, top notch, and with the exception of the Treasury department, which is itself currently horribly understaffed through no fault of Secretary Geithner, they're doing what I consider to be a fine job.
