This is the most exciting US primary season I can remember. One reason for that, of course, is the closeness of the races—it’s only in the last week or so that John McCain has emerged as the Republican frontrunner, and the Democratic race still remains too close to call. But just as important has been the message of “change” that has resounded from all the leading campaigns. Barack Obama, of course, has led this charge, but the rhetoric of change from the Republicans has been almost as strong, as the candidates look to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular president.
As Stephen Boyle explains in a web exclusive for Prospect, underlying this rhetoric is a myth of omnipotence—the idea that the president alone can effect great changes in the governing of the United States, that he or she can pursue a policy agenda unfettered by political circumstances. But this is untrue. The separation of powers built into the American system over two centuries ago means that a president can do very little alone; up against a hostile congress he or she will find it very difficult to get anything done at all. Unlike the British prime minister, he even needs to get approval for his cabinet. That is why the most important power of the presidency is the power to persuade; to bargain, negotiate and compromise with a congress that may or may not have a similar agenda.
This is not news, of course; presumably every American high school student has it drummed into them at an early age. But amid the hype of an exciting primary campaign, it’s easy to forget that no president ever has things entirely his own way.
Also this week: in the year that marks the 60th anniversary both of Gandhi’s assassination and of the founding of Israel, Salil Tripathi looks at Gandhi’s controversial suggestion that the Jews should have willingly submitted themselves to their ill treatment at the hands of their Nazi oppressors and asks if the philosophy of non-violence makes sense in the context of murderous dictatorship.
Well, of course. It should go without saying, and most people realize this fact of the Presidency. However, it is much easier to get things done if you have an amenable Congress. My personal belief is that Hillary has serious questions over her electiblity but that leadership by Obama could deliver a Congress with a comfortable Democratic majority. Secondly, Obama has a genuine record of reaching across the aisle and getting the cooperation of the other side, which Hillary does not, nor does McCain. Then there is the use of the bully pulpit - - quite a lot can be achieved by its clever use (actual action on global warming is a good example where leadership is badly needed), and Obama would be excellent at that. No, everything would not be solved overnight, nor in eight years. But I am more sanguine than Mr. Nuttall.
I live in the US - I have to be!
I agree with much of what Robert says in response to Tom, and I’m supporting Obama for many of those reasons.
But to be fair to the record, Hillary has been very effective at working across the aisle in the Senate. What surprised many people when she entered the Senate is that she not only sought collaboration with Republicans — even many of her most vocal opponents — but she largely succeeded in winning them over.
If you focus on the letter of the law Mr. Boyle is right about the separation of power but I believe it is more important to focus on the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law gives preference and strength to cooperation in the service of the citizens. If the people support the president’s agenda it will happen. Presidents have been known to say one thing and do another then lose the support of the people. When that happens things don’t turn on a dime but they do turn around.