Testing the Progressive Hypothesis of the Bully Pulpit

Gallup says that "More than eight in 10 Americans (81%) disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job," whereas 52 percent approve of the way President Obama is doing his job, therefore "the disparity may give Obama the upper hand when it comes to generating public support on various policy issues and laws where congressional leaders and the president disagree"--i.e., think sequester.

Gallup's guesswork exemplifies what we can call the Progressive Hypothesis, which contends that the president, in possession of the "bully pulpit" (a mistaken T.R.-ism whose originator, by "bully," meant fine or dandy, not bullying) can somehow amass unbearable public pressure on Congress to act in a way contrary to its wishes. (The Progressive Hypothesis is closely related to the Progressive Delusion, which holds that street marches and assorted public protests can and indeed will coerce Congress and the president to act in ways contrary to their wishes.)

Last year, in a New Yorker piece by Ezra Klein, titled "The Unpersuaded: Who Listens To A President?" the president's own David Axelrod tried shooting down the Progressive Hypothesis: "Some folks in politics believe this is all just a rhetorical game, but when you’re governing it’s not." The article's larger upshot reflected Axelrod's observation:

Aggressive, public leadership is typically ineffective and, during periods of divided government, can actually make matters worse.

All right then. So the bully pulpit is out? Wrong. Because "passivity is even more dangerous," since "you’re not getting anything done and you look like you’re not even trying." And this, it would seem, is the principal political lesson that Axelrod & Co. took from their boss's first term, second half.

All of which leads, however, to the article's largest upshot, which loops back to Axelrod's original, Progressive Hypothesis-shoot down:

[A]s the two parties become more sharply divided, it may become increasingly difficult for a President to govern--and there’s little that he can do about it.

Hence the Progressive Hypothesis stands both falsified and unrefuted, condemned and acquitted, right and wrong. The bully pulpit is a magnificent show, shimmering in all manner of beneficial appearance; but as a governing tool, it's a hamster's wheel.

Comments

[Peter G]

Axelrod is no fool. The president must stay engaged but the failure to achieve victory through rhetorical splendor would be disastrous. TR is also the man who spoke of talking softly. And it is not just what speeches the president gives, it is also where. National coverage is not necessary and may be counterproductive. Calm persistence seems to be about the best that rhetoric can do.

[AnneJ]

So I guess nothing will get done in the next four years, then? Makes me want to just give up and lose hope.

[Robert Lipscomb]

I will add two factors to your analysis.

Obama is beta-testing his Organizing For America organization and the attendant strategy and tactics. He and everyone else seem to think his campaign micro-polling/marketing were transcendent. It would be interesting to track which congressional districts and states of which senators that Obama is making his staged appearances. Today he is is making a series of interviws with local news media. So, throw them on the analysis.

The second factor is Obama's historic timing. People like us tend to think that political majorities swing from left to right and back again - and they do. But, politics also evolves forward through time via natural phases that are often overlooked in real time. The past four years have been a period of emergency response, which is one reason Obamacare seemed to be out of touch. (In reality, Obama's timing was spot-on.)

My sense is that after the tornadoes, after flood or after the war communities and nations roll up their sleeves and start rebuilding. Often the rebuiling is new and different from the old. That is one definition of progressivism. It also explains why all the elements of Obama's highly progressive agenda have so much individual support.

Should Obama be successful, it might well be due to an acute sense of timing. Maybe the current zeitgeist is progressive (as I defined it) rather than liberal, conservative, right, left, Democrat or Republican.

Organizing For America might the right tool for the right job at the right time.

[Peter G]

I think you've nailed that Robert. A bully pulpit, in the modern sense rather than being a keen place to give a speech, is effective only insofar as it induces public pressure on congressmen. Now we all know how effective that is likely to be. If, however, one organizes the pressure and is deft in picking targets for pressure, who knows what may be achieved? It's not like they have any other untried strategies.