Whether he was simply offering advice, or whether he was channeling strategy conversations he had with Obama administration staffers, back on Tuesday Ezra Klein certainly described the apparent legislative strategy of the Obama administration for 2009:
For now, the White House should have as little to do as possible with the various legislative products. Let the committees absorb the blows of the bad weeks. Let the early coalitions present themselves. Let the Republicans show their strategy in the mark-up sessions. Let the CBO score all the different options. Let the legislature familiarize itself with different revenue options. Wait. Wait and wait and wait. Wait until Congress has pushed this as far upfield as it's able.
Then open up the White House. Then have Obama on TV. Then have Rahm on the phone with legislators. Then take Olympia Snowe for a ride on Marine One. The White House can exert explosive force on a piece of legislation, but it can only do so effectively for a short period of time.
The White House has made no early legislative pushes for really anything this year. On the stimulus, negotiations were largely left to a gang of Senators Congress. As EFCA and cramdown went down to defeat, the White House didn't do or say much of anything. On climate change, the White House stayed pretty quiet until the deals were already made, and the votes were all but secured. On health care, they appear to once again be largely staying out of it. Even back in October, before Obama was President, he was instrumental in the final push to pass the Wall Street bailout, but played no real role until it was first defeated in the House.
Outside of the budget and the bailout, the Obama administration simply does not appear to be adopting a significant role in crafting legislation. Unlike the Bush administration, it has decided to leave that to Congress. The end result is that Congress is now relevant again. In fact, it seems entirely reasonable to state that Congress is now more relevant than the White House.
For those looking for a strong hand to help guide progressive legislation, this might be seen as a bad thing. Surely, Obama's assistance on cramdown and EFCA would have been particularly desirable. However, overall I think it is a net positive. For one thing, I don't think the Obama administration is particularly progressive. For another, far too much power had been accumulated in the "unitary executive." Congress, especially the House, should be the most powerful branch of government. With more regular elections, equal representation, and smaller districts, it is by far the most democratic institution in the federal government. (It is not a coincidence that it is also the most progressive.)
So, I'm glad that Congress is relevant again. I wish there was some way to legally codify its newfound relevance, and to make sure that we never return to the unitary executive. |
