Bureaucratic Resilience
This is simply wrong:
One of the principal aspects that make the “weak presidency” claim so laughable is that the post-World-War II presidency has done virtually nothing but expand in power. The President controls virtually the entire Pentagon and intelligence industry, and all administrative agencies, with very few limits. That includes a massive amount of jobs, contracts, access, and projects the White House single-handedly directs, and the President can expand or cancel a whole slew of pet projects for various members of Congress and their home states or districts.
This is, it’s fair to say, a brutal misunderstanding of the relationship between the President and the national security bureaucracy. The White House does not, in point of fact, single-handedly direct projects that can, in any significant number, be canceled or redirected at executive whim. Each expansion of executive power creates an institutional manifestation of that power; the institutional manifestation then produces, in and of itself, an interest group with powerful incentives in favor of the status quo. These interest groups have multiple ways in which they can check executive power, including intra-administrative regulation, labor protection, and congressional influence. The vast majority of the employees of the executive branch are career civil servants who continue to enjoy considerable control (as they should) over hiring, firing, and placement. Non-governmental employees also enjoy a variety of protections while under government contract. The money spent on the national security bureaucracy flows to a large number of states and congressional districts, vesting interests within those that support executive power in effect if not in principle. These structures are not infinitely plastic; they cannot be moved from district to district at executive whim. Simply put, just because the President technically has control over a particular budget does not mean that he or she has the practical ability to slash or multiply at will.
This is not, I should hasten to add, part of an “Obama apologist meme.” Bureaucracies, especially large ones associated with the state, are deeply resistant to change, and manifest that resistance in any number of ways. This is not a phenomenon that is limited to the Obama administration, or to the United States government. In every state (and, indeed, in every corporation) the power of the executive is limited in ways that aren’t obvious from a surface legal analysis. Observing this hardly constitutes an apology for the executive. At risk of Godwin, Hitler and Stalin were unable to coerce their bureaucracies into doing precisely what they wanted, in spite of minimal legal obstacles to executive power.
…to add a bit, the idea that the US presidency is relatively weak compared to other executive offices is not new to the Obama administration. It is an argument that has, the “imperial presidency” notwithstanding, been made repeatedly over the last fifty years by political scientists specializing in American and comparative politics. Repeating this argument hardly makes one an “Obama apologist”; skeptics of the comparative power of the US executive may be wrong, but they aren’t specific to the Obama administration. Indeed, more than a few of the same liberal pundits that Greenwald assails have noted that George W. Bush accomplished relatively few of his domestic priorities, in spite of enjoying significant congressional majorities for several years of his two terms. In foreign policy the situation is different, and indeed Greenwald allows that “honest” discussants of American executive power have noted the difference between domestic and foreign executive latitude.
None of this is to say that the Presidency is “helpless”; rather, it’s really important, and people should take it very seriously. People should also take Senate elections, which are altogether less important than the Presidency, very seriously. However, I haven’t really seen anyone claim that the US Presidency is “weak, helpless, and impotent”; Glenn certainly intimates that his interlocutors have this view, but he fails to demonstrate such, and my own cursory reading of the discussion has thus far failed to uncover anyone who holds such a view of the US executive.
The big, glaring hole I see in Greenwald’s anti-Obama arguments (only making a partial appearance in this one) is that they lay court decisions at Obama’s feet. If the most important progressive criticisms of the administration pertain to civil liberties, followed closely by foreign policy (on which Greenwald stipulates there isn’t liberal disagreement) then why is it that all available anger is leveled at the Obama administration, who “argued” to uphold or expand on Bush policies, rather than at people with decision making power, i.e. judges?
Hi Dave.
I think we are going to have a “chicken or the egg” moment.
We can’t have court decisions unless someone goes to court asking for one. The Obama Admin has been in the courts since day one of his grasp of power. What his (His Dept of Justice, Not to mention his personal institutional military courts) lawyers have been doing is, on many cases, asking for the same, and worse, infringements on our civil liberties that the Bush lawyers did.
They have to ask for something to get it. So, we can blame the permissive parents (the Courts) for giving Obama too much candy (favorable decisions)or we can blame him for asking for and eating too much candy. I believe a little personal responsibility-check would say that it is Obama’s fault for asking for and eating too much candy, not the Courts.
As for Farley’s comment above, it is almost laughable. To say that “The White House does not, in point of fact, single-handedly direct projects that can, in any significant number, be canceled or redirected at executive whim . . .” is about as fake of an argument as one can make.
Why not just say that “No one in this world, in point of fact, can single-handedly direct projects that can be canceled or redirected at whim”? Because it would be a laughably simplistic answer to any question of abuse of power.
And that is what the whole “weak President” line is about — making sure that those with power are not held accountable.
Fair enough, Seedee Vee. Just wondering what the possible arguments are.
I agree; normally I’m on board with Glenn but he went a bit overboard on this case, perhaps substituting a bit too much outrage for reason. I must confess to being pretty disgusted with Obama myself, but wouldn’t use discussions with people who observe real, actual limits to the presidency as a reason to create the idea of a straw man “impotent office of the president” meme.
The Executive does have the ability to act with a far greater degree of freedom in matters foreign than domestic. Glenn does admit this, and I got the distinct impression this attack was more about Obama’s handling of civil liberties and most of his foreign policy than about “apologists.”
1. There are real institutional limits on the power of the president as Farley points out.
2. These real institutional limits do not prevent Obama from pursuing different policies w/r/t torture, claims of executive power, and civil liberties. They do not make him order the unreviewable assassination of U.S. citizens. They do not force Obama to illegally hold innocent people like Mohamed Hassan Odaini who courts have ordered be released in Gitmo.
As Greenwald notes in the post linked above:
The first two comments here reveal the dynamic of this “debate.” Greenwald may overstate the general point about presidential powers in the passage that Farley quotes above. However, he and the ACLU’s Anthony Romero are 100% correct about this administration’s horrific attitude toward civil liberties. Yet Dave and Monty turn Farley’s argument about what amounts to a side point as an excuse to handwave away real, concrete concerns about policies that are entirely in Obama’s power to change.
I agree with Farley more than Greenwald. Mr Farley’s observations about the dynamics of fed government, especially wrt his remarks per the federal bureaucracy, seem right on the money.
OTOH, while Greenwald’s post sucks on several levels (his argument is fail), I totally see where he’s coming from.
Likely, Greenwald’s (like Hamsher’s, etc) outrage comes from assuming Obama was every bit the liberal reformist he campaigned as…yet now he’s observationally behaving more like George WPE Bush than not.
I do not look forward to Greenwald’s 10,000 word update to this post.
Yes, it is uncomfortable for some when Greenwald clutters up the Web with facts instead of piping pithy opinions devoid of any anchor in reality.
Personally I enjoy Greenwald’s work, because he provides evidence for his assertions. But I understand that such a tactic can taint the taste of the kool-aid.
It’s pretty clear you also enjoy Greenwald because you approve of arguments that paint those who dare you disagree with you as :kool aid” drinking idiots because smart people always agree with and those who bring up injections are clearly incapable of independent thought if they don’t agree with the mighty GG. Be original, think exactly like GG (or you).
Greenwald’s problem is that, even when he’s right (which is reasonably often), he doesn’t know how to do so without being an asshole about it.
Also, as someone else said on another site, I’d also like him to say what HE’D actually do if HE were the President. He only criticizes the present path, he never actually says what the correct one would be. Why? Because that shit is hard.
Seriously. You’re the President and you free everyone at Guantanamo Greenwald wants freed? How do you ensure none of them attacks? You can’t? How do you salvage your presidency if one of them winds up involved in an attack killling scores, hundreds, or thousands of Americans? The right answer may be “you can’t” but you have to because that’s the law. Great, but you still need to address the practical consequences. If GG, however, can’t even address these questions even on a theoretical level in an honest way that deals with the consequenses, then why in God’s name should we take any of his endless, predictable, repetitive and tendentious attacks seriously? Maybe the answer is that civil liberties involves great risk, but then he should have the guts to make that case rather than just making the same attack ad infinitum.
Greenwald was mainly emphasizing areas in which the administration has (not just theoretically, but demonstrably) had its own ability to choose which policies to pursue or not pursue, and he was critiquing both the policy decisions made and what he sees as a strategy of defending such decisions by certain persons as claiming that in those areas, i.e., particular areas in which the Administration appears to have had its own leeway in selecting policies, the Administration had little power to do anything else.
I would think that if you felt Greenwald’s column worthy of engaging, you would address those two empirical / theoretical points, rather than a grand approach on how it’s insufficient as a scientific principle as stated in political science empirical generalizations on the power of the Presidency.
This is the problem with Greenwald, Hamsher, some Daily Kos frontpagers, Digby, etc.
They are constantly alleging that Obama needs to do little else other than simply exert his will, and show “leadership”, whatever that means, and suddenly . . . progressive legislation? Suddenly, Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu will vote for a public option?
It’s completely ridiculous. In fact, Greenwald claims that Obama supporting Halter would have somehow whipped Lincoln into shape. It makes zero sense at all. Had he done that, Obama would now be dealing with a Blanche Lincoln who would be veering even further to the right, and would be highly disinclined to even talk to the person who campaigned for her primary opponent.
Let’s face it. There is a reason all of these make make these arguments. They have been making them for going on 3 years now. They want a president or presidential candidate who will yell, scream, and use the exact magic words. They really don’t care very much about outcomes or possibilities. Not to mention the fact that a large number of these people were openly hostile to Obama during the campaign. This isn’t surprising.
“They are constantly alleging that Obama needs to do little else other than simply exert his will, and show “leadership”, whatever that means, and suddenly . . . progressive legislation? ”
No, they are alleging the he does exert his will, but in opposition to the principle on which he ran. Making the back-room deal to kill the public option, a deed well documented in multiple sources, while weeping crocodile tears over it’s demise, is a perfect example of the deception he practices.
Exactly. The only people he’s prosecuted so far who were connected to Bush-era crimes are in fact the people who blew the whistle on them:
Oh, and because I’m curious to see if anyone will address what IB posted upthread, here it is again:
The problem here is that you say “show “leadership”, whatever that means”.
No offense, but, if you give a “whatever” response to a question of leadership, you are hopeless in this topic. As least Farley is implying that we can’t have any leadership because things are so big and complicated that our little brains just can’t get it done.
Whatever El Cid. Nothing wrong whatsoever about this post.
For god’s sake, look at this looney whopper from Greenwald:
Is there a single rational human being on the planet who actually believes that had Obama threatened to support a primary challenge to Lincoln, she would be more inclined to help Obama?
Which then causes us to ask: given Lincoln’s appalling behavior, why did Obama back her over her challenger? Mere stupidity?
Because Lincoln did, in fact, vote for the health care bill and the financial reform bill.
And because Obama presumably didn’t much care about those parts of the HCR bill that Lincoln helped kill off. Nor about EFCA, which she played an important role in nixing.
What IB said. She voted for them after having spent a great deal of effort gutting them.
Bingo!
And the only reason she even bothered to feint to the left on FinReg (i.e., allow her name to be tacked onto a FinReg bill) was because she had to at least pretend she was for us “lesser people” until Bill Halter’s primary challenge went away. (It’s rather telling that once she and the Chamber of Commerce had finished shoveling the last bit of dirt on Halter’s campaign, she almost immediately started working to water down the FinReg bill.)
Oh, and again, why — as was the case in Hawaii with Hanabusa and Case — did the White House and their friends at the DCCC (which Rahm used to run) intervene on behalf of the candidate least likely to do well in the general? (Especially as Hawaii Democrats had already made it clear in 2006 that they didn’t want the zillionaire DINO Case to replace Senator Akaka, either.)
Greenwald’s way off on the aspects of domestic policy and politics, but his comments about the Obama administration’s human-rights abuses are very apt. I suspect his anger (and the sloppiness of much of his argument) is motivated by how quiet so many commentators have been about Obama’s approach to civil liberties, whistleblowers, and foreign policy.
Greenwald is a brilliant legal analyst and thinker, but he’s completely incapable of thinking like a social scientist.
Greenwald and other progressive Obama critics also colossally overrate the utility of the bully pulpit. Their view of communication and persuasion is very simplistic.
They think that all Obama has to do is give a speech on something, and that will seal the deal, creating instant grassroots pressure. Or that he can say to a Senator like Ben Nelson, “Boo!” and Nelson will capitulate on an issue. It’s dumbfounding.
Why would he worry about Nelson? He had already nixed the p.o. in meetings with private health care providers, prior to Nelson’s refusals.
Yeah. So many people just seem to want to pretend that the March, April and May 2009 meetings at the White just never happened. You know, the ones where the Obama White House worked out a deal with industry stakeholders to jettison things like the PO and Medicare drug price negotiation in exchange for $150 million ads for Democrats this election cycle (as opposed to against, as when Big Health ran “Harry and Louise” nonstop in 1994)?
M.Stack, who is being “simplistic” now?
I know you are “dumbfounded”, but please, dig down deep and review Greenwald’s comments again before we all start throwing around the “Greenwald and other progressive Obama critics” line.
Rather then basing your attacks on one paragraph of Greenwald’s well reasoned column, I urge the posters here to read Greenwald’s entire column. His premise is that die-hard Obama supporters, after investing two years of their life to get the man elected, are now making excuses for Obama’s failures by claiming that the Presidency is weak, powerless, and unable to actually do much of anything to accomplish the goals that Obama campaigned on. He asks the question, why did we vote in record numbers, why did we choose Obama if the office he holds is powerless? He further asks, if Obama is in fact powerless and should not be blamed for anything that has happened in the last year, why did we (the left) attack Bush and Cheney for 8 years, blaming him for the collapse of the economy, for abusing the Constsitution, etc…wasn’t Bush just as powerless and blameless as Obama?
I do wish that readers could distinguish between a critique of one portion of Greenwald’s argument and Greenwald’s overall position…
Game, set and match to Glennzilla. :-)
for those criticizing greenwalds argument that obama can influence decisions, how do you account for this
By fixing it:
That was easy accounting!
wow!!!
can u explain why they had leverage in this case and not in the public option case?
Well, it’s been nearly two days now, and nobody’s dared to step forward on this. Just like they won’t acknowledge the meetings held at the White House in the spring of 2009 where the PO was dealt away in exchange for $150 in pro-Democrat ads (and no “Harry and Louise” ads) for the 2010 election cycle:
Of course, Carper is from Delaware, which has lots of pharmaceutical companies within its borders.
This weak presidency argument follows immediately on the heals of the “hasn’t been in office long enough” argument.
They are excuses for Obama not accomplishing anything that is remotely progressive. It would, I think, be simpler to admit that we were lied to and he has not even remotely progressive.
mark f’s argument is another straw man. The point is that Obama chooses to use his political capital to oppose progressive positions and support conservative positions.
Farley made a big mistake by suggesting that nobody had said the President was weak. In a new update to his most recent piece, Greenwald quotes Jonathan Bernstein as calling it a “very weak office.”
You’ve been Pwned, Mr. Farley. Check facts next time. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/22/impotence/index.html
Oh, I know; Glenn and I are engaged in a long, angry (on his part), and largely pointless e-mail argument on this point.
I am glad you recognize your mitakes. Kudos.
Sorry about the typo (mistakes).
This is classic Greenwald, extremely lawyerly. Take the discussion away from a sober assessment, based on political history and social science, about the nature and scope of the power of the presidency, and into a gotcha game about a relatively trivial inaccuracy about a how the terms of the debate was characterized.
1) Does the president have a choice to campaign for an incumbent or a challenger and help them win elections or not?
2) Can the President attend fund raisers and generate lots of campaign cash or not?
3) Does the President have the authority to release people from Guantanamo or not?
4) Does the President have veto power over things members of congress want passed or not?
5) Does the President have a lot of horses to use in horsetrading or not?
6) Is the President the commander in chief of the military or not?
7) When the President wants to speak on TV does every channel cover his speech or not?
8) During a time of war is the President able to influence the conduct of that war or not?
This whole conversation is focusing on things that aren’t relevant and ignoring things that are.
Scott, you realize this is making Greenwald’s point, right? Yes, Obama would rather have shitty Democrat Lincoln in office, because he doesn’t really care that she and her ilk gut real progressive legislation. He just wants to make sure that the half-ass bills get passed. For “strategic” reasons Obama finds it very convenient to have the Lincolns of the world in office as “Democrats”.
In Glenn’s opinion, shared by many, Obama backing Halter would have been a much more progressive stance, for two reasons:
- Halter, had he ultimately won an election, is far more progressive on almost all issues
- It sends a message to Lincoln that her conservative stances cost her support from the “progressive” party
Obama, however, backed Lincoln. And the most obvious explanation is that he really doesn’t care about those two points, because he’s not actually very progressive (in contrast to many of his specific campaign promises).
Very well said, Ice.
Obama publicly got what he wanted from Lincoln and publicly gave her his support.
This ignores the fact that Presidents have, as far as I can tell, always supported incumbents of their own party. For him not to do so in this case was at least arguably a good idea — assuming it really made the difference and lost Lincoln the election, which is by no means a foregone conclusion. It would, however, have been hugely risky because then he’d have a conservative Demo in office owing him absolutely nothing.
Once again, Greenwald never addresses consequences, only ideas. He simply expects Obama to do what GG thinks is right and not even take consequences into account.
[...] today by ignoring most of the arguments I made and distorting the rest. Others have responded to my argument a bit more substantively, but I’m content to let stand the extensive arguments [...]
By the way, guess who’s apparently decided that Bills of Attainder (especially if used to take down progressive groups that work to house poor people, like the one Congress did against ACORN) are A-OK?
[...] points. Here are Glenn’s first, second and third pieces, as well as a smattering of other perspectives (not an exhaustive list by any [...]