With the midterm election right around the corner, the idea of this election season being a referendum of President Obama is seeing more traction in the media coverage. As President Obama’s approval numbers are slipping, it is hard to deny that the gap between what Americans expect from the administration and what the president is constitutionally and realistically able to achieve is a significant factor. It seems as though many of the swing voters who helped elect Barack Obama are disappointed and might swing their vote in a different direction in the coming midterm election.
In chapter five of “Presidents and the People” Mel Laracey discusses Benjamin Harrison’s approach to the presidency. Laracey quotes Harrison as saying, “There is not much that a President can do to shape [national] policy. He is charged under the Constitution with the duty of making suggestions to Congress, but, after all, legislation originates with the Congress of the United States, and the policy of our laws is directed by it. The President may veto, but he cannot frame a bill.”
The constraints on the office of the presidency that Harrison highlighted is something today’s voters have seemed to forget. Constitutionally, the legislative powers of the president are few and far between. The President is expected to give some form of a State of the Union Address outlining his or her agenda. And the President also has the power to veto legislation; however a veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses. So essentially, the President can make suggestions and reject legislation, but the President cannot draft legislation. However, all of the legislation in the past year and a half has somehow been attributed to President Obama. Whether he is given the glory or the blame, the media (and consequentially the voters) have seemed to create this idea that Obama is the Legislator-in-Chief.
Maybe this misunderstanding of the President’s powers stems from the expectation of Presidents to use their informal ‘power of persuasion’ to ensure legislative achievements. President Obama’s success seems to depend on his ability to persuade Congress, other political actors, the media, and the voters to further his agenda. But even though Obama was able to successfully ‘go public’ during his campaign, he hasn’t been able to mobilize the public in a way that yields significant support. Despite having a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, Obama still wasn’t able to fulfill the public’s expectations.
How does the Obama administration plan to rejuvenate support for the Democratic party while also saving the President’s reputation? Send Vice President Joe Biden to talk with the media, of course.
Last week, The Washington Post’s opinion writer Stephen Stromberg wrote a piece about how Biden essentially is telling the Democratic base to grow up -- or at least “get over its disillusionment and rejuvenate itself for the midterm elections”. Stromberg notes how Biden listed Obama’s legislative accomplishments while challenging liberals to reconsider their impatience with the pace of reform in Washington. And as Stromberg put it, Biden “reminded them that staying at home [on election day] means the other guy wins -- and that they really wouldn’t like the other guy.”
Stromberg believes that progressives have to take the blame for their own disappointment, seeing as they placed “unmeetable expectations on Obama.” He also projects what the party will do if things go bad for the Democrats on election night. Stromberg wrote: “Many will blame the president, not themselves, arguing that Obama should have articulated a grand, progressive vision -- which would have inspired about a third of the nation and concerned the rest. They'll also blame him for not fighting harder for a larger stimulus that didn't have the votes, for a public option that didn't have the votes, for card-check legislation that didn't have the votes, to close Guantanamo faster than Congress would let him or to end don't ask don't tell before lawmakers would allow it.” Stromberg labels this attitude of the Democratic party as “self-fulfilling self-righteousness”.
It seems as though the public is not alone in their misguided expectations for President Obama. Democratic members of Congress have their own expectation gap concerning the President. Many of the legislators who rode into office on Obama’s coattails in 2008 seem to be distancing themselves from him in their 2010 campaign efforts. Apparently since the President has been given the burden of blame with recent legislation, members do not want to be associated with his unpopular approval ratings. But as Stromberg argues, if these members lose their re-election, they will probably be quick to say President Obama didn’t do enough to secure their seat. With unrealistic expectations from both Congress and the public (as well as less than favorable commentary from the media), it’s no surprise the administration has trouble in successfully ‘going public’.
Stephen Stromberg: “Joe Biden scolds progressive -- and he’s right”
September 16, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/09/joe_biden_scolds_progressives.html
In regards to this post, I want to better discuss this statement: “But even though Obama was able to successfully ‘go public’ during his campaign, he hasn’t been able to mobilize the public in a way that yields significant support.” To start this comment off, I want to say I disagree to some extent. In my opinion and in light of this weeks reading, I feel as though Obama was not successful when he went “public” during his campaign. Due to his inability to “go public” successfully, I am not surprised he hasn’t been able to find support from the public.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Obama, President Abraham Lincoln knew how to successfully “go public”, during a time of conflict. Looking back at the time when Lincoln was running for president, the country was facing the civil war between the North and South. A huge issue, Lincoln chose to avoid talking about it. By not promising anything he was able to gain support by not picking sides.
Obama, however, has completely failed in my opinion. Coming into a presidency where the country is much in ruins, Obama has made too many promises that he cannot keep. Wanting to please everybody, Obama has fallen short of many people’s expectations. During his campaign, Obama promised a number of things including more jobs and help to get out of the recession we were currently in; however, things have gotten much worst since he entered the White House.
In chapter 4 of, Presidents and the People, Mel Laracey explains just how Lincoln was successful in making speeches before his inauguration. When asked to give a response on specific issues, Lincoln responded with a number of reasons. Firstly, Lincoln would say he “did not yet know enough about the situation to speak wisely and authoritatively” (101). Looking at Obama, perhaps he should have done the same thing. Considering he is very young and with little experience, Obama could not have been educated enough about all the issues to make full assumptions of what will and will not work. “Second, Lincoln expressed the hope that problems might “work themselves out” without his involvement. Third, Lincoln wanted to wait until he was sure he was right because he would not easily be able to change his positions” (101). With this said, Obama, unlike Lincoln, during his campaign took many sides without fully understanding. He made promises and sided with issues that perhaps he wasn’t fully educated about, such as the War In Iraq. While this is a huge debate within itself, I feel as though had he known more about the war, he would have not made so many promises to pull the soldiers out so soon. Finally, “Lincoln [also] argued that his words were being so closely followed that it would be unwise for him to say anything because trival statements would be unacceptable and he therefore could not ‘be expected to be prepared to make a mature one just now.’“ (101). Again, didn’t Obama know the public was listening to his promises? If he promises something, of course they are going to look for results and criticize him if her fails.
Therefore, in light of the article discussed in the post above, I believe it is a little too late for Joe Biden’s help. Obama has buried himself too deep and has probably risked a major upset for the Democrats in the upcoming 2010 elections. Perhaps if he had been smarter when “going public” he wouldn’t have let down all those who originally stood by him just a few years ago.
Firstly I would like to start by saying that the President clearly outlined his proposed agenda through out his campaign. An agenda that was certainly elaborate and hopeful. He had a huge backing of support going into his presidency by all corners of society including voters, the media and politicians so I feel as though it is fair to say that his unrealistically high expectations of change in such a short period is what's not allowing his agenda to proceed. This in turn has a huge effect on why his approval rating is down, and continues to go down.
ReplyDeleteIf the first part of the quote used by President Harrison in Chapter 5 of Laracey's book that " There is not much a President can do to to shape [national] policy," this is going against everything that Obama was all about during his campaign. A complete overhaul of the system is what he proposed, but knowing what we know about passing legislation in this country, it is no reason that many of the promises that were made have yet to be fulfilled.
Obamas take on "going public" is what may have caused the nation to have such a low approval rating on him and his administration. However I do feel sympathy for him as he was entering into his term with two ongoing wars and an economic decline. However, regardless of my sympathy of I must disagree with your statement on the public and legislation having "misguided expectations, as it were his ideas and policies that so many of us not only voted for, but were truly excited for. At the end of Chapter 4 in Laracey there is a great example of how to carry out the opposite of this. "For him, the Presidents role was to follow congress, not to try to lead it by appealing to the people. Any effort to communicate with the people on matters of public policy would not only have risked the wrath of the party that had nominated him..."pg 121 This is precisely what Obama did during his campaign and into the first half of his Presidency and in effect, he is feeling the wrath.
This week’s reading on political advertising was particularly interesting, especially with the midterm elections coming up. I thought Andrew’s example of what Laracey said the president’s “role” is a great way to start to explain what we are seeing with President Obama’s administration and approval ratings. During the campaign, Obama offered the people not only policy reform, which many people felt needed to happen after the war in Iraq lasting most of the decade and the beginnings of the recession, but he also offered Americans a fresh image to go along with his fresh take on policy. However, attempting to get congress on board with all ideas is a whole different story. While the expectation gap has always existed between the president and citizens, I think Obama’s image of change he projected during the campaign has caused his expectation gap to expand even more. Many people probably think he can fix the problems in our country because he promised change, and he seemed young and passionate. This was much like former presidents and the image they projected during their campaigns, but did not live up to this image later on. In the article Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising it talks in length about one such notable image, that of President Harrison. During his campaign he was portrayed as a war hero and country boy, and that he lived in a cabin, while in fact he had never lived in a cabin in his life (8-12). However, Americans at the time were looking for someone to head the country that reminded them of themselves and the down to earth values they had. I think this is very similar to President Obama’s campaign, and his appeal to Americans who were looking for something different, a change in the country, and a change in the type of person to lead them. However, the problem is wanting to provide people with the changes they want and you believe in, and actually being able to accomplish them when you have to appeal to congress and not the people that rallied behind you in your campaign.
ReplyDeleteI agree that President Obama has a huge expectations gap that he may not be able to beat. However I wouldn't count him out just yet as historically Democrats are almost always better at being on the defensive. It is interesting to see how campaigning has transformed from whole newspapers dedicated to a President to now the rise of social media. Due to the increasing magnifying glass that's on our politicians these days they are always expected to be held accountable for everything they say during the campaign trail or off. Laracey argued that James Polk's use of the newspaper demonstrated "the importance a president could attach to having an official paper in Washington to "speak in his behalf" (pg. 86) After the 2008 Campaign it has been shown how vital social networking is and how important it can be used as a tool for fundraising and getting word out on issues. While it may have worked for the campaign I haven't really seen much of the usage of those same tools to keep the message out about his current national policy plans and how certain bills etc. will benefit you. However, he does give a lot more speeches so in terms of "going public" during the campaign he moved 'going public' to a new level with Social Media, but now he has stepped back and more of went back to the older ways of Presidents to keep in touch with the people by speeches and television appearances. I do agree that the public is misguided in their views of what Obama can and cannot accomplish in 2 short years as President.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Stromberg quote, “Many will blame the president, not themselves, arguing that Obama should have articulated a grand, progressive vision -- which would have inspired about a third of the nation and concerned the rest." Obama made clear plans throughout his campaign (even during his time as Illinois Senator) for the country including leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, health care, immigration and the list goes on and on. I also agree that Obama does not have the authority to draft legislation which is why most, if not all, of his proposals have been revised. Either way Obama would get some type of bad press because the people that voted him to the office expected those proposals and instead got some type of Independent, Republican revision, and the people that didn't want him in at all still has part of the Democratic ideals. Laracey explains that in "Presidents and the People", [President Grant's] role was to follow Congress, not to try to lead it by appealing to the people (121)." Its the risk of taking political office, but also the beauty of it as well. Aren't we lucky that we have this type of debate and balance than a monarchy or dictatorship?
ReplyDeleteIt's undeniable, no matter what party you belong to, that America is going through a difficult time. The easy thing to do is to point a finger at somebody, especially if you have no control over the problem. Since Obama is the face of America, most of us are quick to criticize what he has done wrong. But even in the toughest of times, we have to take a moment and remember he brought a great sense of pride to our nation when he won, and that foreign countries idolize him. Even though I did not vote for Obama in the 2008 election, I do believe Democrats will still have a slight advantage because voters will remember what Democrats did in November 2008.
The expectation gap is prevalent in today’s politics and the Obama administration. Obama has made recent efforts for himself and his party to appear more likeable to the American public, such as with the “Back to School” speeches. Whether this proves to be successful or not will remain to be seen until November. I believe there is no doubt the expectation gap with our government administration will only grow, no matter the outcome of the elections.
ReplyDeleteTara quotes from The Washington Post about the midterm elections that states, “Stromberg also projects what the party will do if things go bad for the Democrats on election night…many will blame the president, not themselves, arguing that Obama should have articulated a grand, progressive vision.” If either Democrats or the GOP assume control of the Senate, Obama will be the one to blame. If the Democrats remain in control, Obama will receive even more pressure for “change”. If the GOP gains control, Democrats will blame Obama for not doing as much as he could. The expectation gap lies within the government and the people. The public will have similar views if their party wins or loses. However, the average American does not know whom else to blame, so they ridicule the man whom they think has the highest power. Is that their fault? We are raised to believe the president is the most powerful man and when he cannot deliver, who else do we blame?
Tara quotes from Mel Laracey’s book, “‘There is not much that a President can do to shape [national] policy…after all, legislation originates with the Congress of the United States, and the policy of our laws is directed by it.’” The fact Congress has a large say in policy making is a reality Americans must realize and try to make an effort to seal the gap on their expectations. Not putting all the pressure on one person, our president, could better communication between the public and the government by allowing a more free-flow of information between these two groups.
Laracey points out in Chapter 4 that there was never a norm against “going public”. He argues that presidents such as Lincoln were not open about their policies because they did not have all of the information to tell the public and make an accurate statement. Laracey writes, “It is true that such blandishments might be polite substitutes for a president telling a crowd that he is not going to speak to it because there is a norm against playing to the passions of the easily swayed masses.” He later argues for the other side that presidents are being truthful when they neglect to answer policy questions, because they do not have enough information to give to the American people. The concepts of going public and the expectation gap work together as an endless cycle. We expect the president to be truthful and inform of us of what is occurring in the White House, but we have our own expectations of what we want to hear them say. Then, we expect even more from them when they fail to live up to our own expectations.
Tara says, “even though Obama was able to successfully ‘go public’ during his campaign, he hasn’t been able to mobilize the public in a way that yields significant support.” I thought this was an interesting point, especially pertaining to the prediction that there will be many swing voters at the midterm elections and Democrats will be less confident in the Obama administration. This also brought up the point of what deems a political figure to be successful in going public? The lack of support that Obama continues to receive is a factor in his failure to successfully “go public”. However, do our high and perhaps unrealistic expectations make him unsuccessful in going public too? Should we reconsider being more patient and not expecting so much out of one person? During the 2008 election we wanted to hear about change, so that is what Obama told us. He was just feeding what the public wanted, and now many Americans see such little change that it becomes a struggle for him to go public on issues without receiving ridicule.
I both agree and disagree that Obama has a huge expectations gap that he won't be able to beat. During his campaign, he has made certain promises that he has not been able to keep, but I believe we are being too harsh on him. Yes, I did vote for Obama because he gave such a genuine insight on how he wanted to country to be under his control, and well, that is not exactly how his presidency is taking our country. But he is not the first to make broken promises. I think that if McCain was elected as president, he would be in the same situation as Obama is now. Bush did not leave the country in such great terms, and it was up to the next president to clean it up. Obama is attempting to clean up the mess left by George W. Bush, but it's taking more time than expected. I think that we should give Obama a break, and let him do what he has to do without having a whole country critisize and analyze his every move. Laracey stated in chapter 4 that "mass public opinion was something to be almost feared and certainly filtered, so that the true "common good" could be distilled through the legislative process." (117) when Andrew Johnson was in presidency. Although times have changed, it is still the same role that the president plays with the mass public--the public's opinion is so strong that just one wrong move can upset the nation, and their public opinion can be ruined. For Obama, he has made many wrong moves, and not many of his American people are happy about it, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the president having expectations which he is simply unable to attain is certainly not a new concept to politics, as is seen in all of Larecy’s analyses of President’s in both Chapters 4 and 5. However no candidate has ever learned that the idea of under promising and over serving might work in their favor, instead they continue to push the distance between both sides in the expectation gap even further away.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of our current president however, goals again were set in place, that where not met in a timely fashion, thus making the gap between what the president said he will do/what the people expect, and what he is actually capable of. While I feel that by Larecy’s definition of going public, Obama has gone public to his general audience, that is to say- the people, I don’t believe we have seen enough him “going public” to Congress. While both sides in this situation are pointing fingers and claiming it is the other side that is making it so hard to get any substantial work done, we have seen no proof in the media that the president has brought to the forefront, we have only seen the president publicly pointing the finger. He needs to make public the various issues that have stopped him from getting his original goals completed. By “going public” the president would be able to better show the people that he is in fact trying to reason and work out the various issues that were promised throughout his campaign.
Larecy speaks about Grover Cleveland and how using newspapers and “going public” to talk about an issue to defend his specific plans actually helped him more than anticipated because the newspapers started doing the work for him- they became adamant about having people participate in his campaigns and further helped along Cleveland’s goals. By being transparent and using the media to explain your goals and how you plan to achieve them, and if there are any players (such as Congress) who are against that, it can help the president to show that he is working diligently on an issue.