We're an odd little species

Ryan Lizza summarizes his very intelligent historical corrective to the prevailing (but fading?) illusion of the presidency's transcendent powers in this passage: 

The boring fact of our system is that congressional math is the best predictor of a President’s success. This idea is not nearly as sexy as the notion that great Presidents are great because they twist arms in backrooms and inspire the American people to rise up and force Congress to bend to their will. But even the Presidents who are remembered for their relentless congressional lobbying and socializing were more often than not successful for more mundane reasons--like arithmetic.

The president's constitutional powers remain constant, while favorable presidential arithmetic comes and goes. Obama's first two years of success versus his subsequent, flatlining four (in play) prove the rule, as did President Johnson's tenure:

[His] celebrated legislative achievements were in reality only a function of the congressional election results--not his powers of persuasion. In 1965 and 1966, after the enormous Democratic gains of the 1964 election, Johnson was a towering figure who passed sweeping legislation. In 1967 and 1968, after he lost forty-eight Democrats in the House, he was a midget.

I would add as a matter of related interest the rather titanic shifts in our own predilections. Voters tend to be virtual monarchists when a president of their choice is in power, yet rapidly swing to Whiggism when the enemy occupies the White House. Under Bush II, for instance, most Democrats came to see their party's political function as one of restraining the president's ugly imperial authority, and yet they've fallen largely silent on the menace of a singular foreign policy and domestic executive orders since 2009; conversely Bush II's supporters, who adored W.'s high-handed and damn near despotic determination, instantly concluded one cold January afternoon that the only good president (well, you know what I mean, not really good) is a congressionally straitjacketed president.

And voters manage all this while never missing a beat; that is, they never acknowledge--especially to themselves--that just yesterday they were lovers of the throne, though today they're devout parliamentarians, or vice versa.

We're an odd little species.

Comments

[Peter G]

I'm currently having a little fun over at Crooks and Liars pointing out exactly the same thing. And referencing the same article thanks to you. It was well written and to the point. Obama's failure to defeat his implacable and unmovable opposition is proof that he concurs with them. Very odd species indeed.

[shsavage]

As Clausewitz observed, "War is the continuation of Politik by other means." The reverse is equally true. What passes for politics in modern America is thinly-veiled tribal warfare.

[Chris Andersen]

The same principal applies to that other great liberal icon, FDR. When he came to office in '32, the Congress had larger super-majorities of very liberal/progressive/socialist activist congressmen. In fact, FDR was probably to the right of Congress and had to rein them in.

But in later sessions, the Democratic majority was severely reduced and FDR had a much tougher time getting things done (such as his court packing scheme).

Then came the war, which, as recent history demonstrates, also gives Presidents a lot of legislative prowess.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Stand back! I am going to beat this dead horse.

Organizing For Action is an innovative approach for trying to coerce opposition legislators. It might or might not work, but following its hits and misses will be a fun exercise in political science.

I am reasonably certain it will be more effective than the Do-Nothing option.