We are approaching the six-month mark of President Obama's first Administration, and I wanted to offer some reflections on his approach to governance, what I see as his view of the role of the Presidency, and what the prospects for the future of his Administration might be.
First, it should be said that not only was his election historic, considering his race and his relative youth; it was historic because it came at the end of eight of the most disjunctive years in the American Presidency. Far from "conservative" in the Edmund Burke/Russell Kirk tradition, the Bush years represented nothing more and nothing less than the attempt to make the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the office of the President of the United States in particular, in to a legally transcendent office. From the very beginning of the Bush's first term, when Vice President Cheney refused a legal order to turn over information on who was advising the Administration on energy policy (there were rumors, of course, but without the information in hand, there was no way to move forward). I remember those summer days of 2001, when Karl Rove managed through ham-handedness to insult a Senate backbencher enough to hand power back to the Democrats; when the burning issue was the poorly framed discussion of embryonic stem-cell research (I mean poorly framed from a scientific point of view), and Bush's decision to withhold federal funding for such research, in essence creating a scientific research vacuum that will take decades to restore; and the weird confrontation with China when an American military airplane was forced to land after violating Chinese airspace. I remember just days before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, telling my wife that Bush's Presidency was already lame-duck. Having lost the popular vote, and only narrowly winning a Electoral College majority in an election still unclear, Bush's poll numbers, after an initial bump thanks to American long-suffering, were sinking fast. Had the events of that beautiful, clear late-summer morning not occurred, my guess is American voters would have turned Bush, and the Republican Party, out of power four years earlier than they did.
With the events of that fateful day, however, and the public cowardice of too many Democrats in elected office to challenge the Bush Administration on any number of matters, we were faced with, and had to cope with, eight years of the last gasp of the Imperial Presidency, ignoring the legal strictures placed upon the Executive Branch (including the oversight role of Congress as the Executive manages public policy), and doing all it could to manage the country through an odd mixture of secrecy and judicious information leaking. The Republicans in the Bush Administration seemed to believe that what was key to governance, the currency of true power, was information; who had it, what other might do with what was out there, and so forth. It was, for all intents and purposes, governance by bureaucracy at its worst, with those who understood how to manipulate the flow of information being in the position of having the most power.
With little public information leading to no way to hold anyone accountable, the Executive went about its business without restraint, without concern for the ramifications of certain actions (or, in the case of the destruction of New Orleans in 2005, lack of action), the end result was the financial collapse, the crumbling physical infrastructure, a lack of trust in the good faith and word of our elected representatives and executive office-holders (thanks to myriad scandals, from sexual exploitation and their attempted cover-up to wide-ranging financial and influence-peddling), and a country on the brink of the worst crisis in national confidence in decades.
Against this backdrop, Barack Obama's candidacy of hopeful American resurgence struck a chord that swept him and the Democrats in to power in both the Executive and Congress. The first piece of major policy was the crafting and passing of an economic stimulus package to help revive our floundering economy. With even a few months hindsight, the management of that bill by the President should be seen as one of the keys to understanding his view of the Presidency. For decades, the President has been seen not only as the Chief Executive, carrying out the laws passed by the people's and state's representatives in Congress, but as a crafter of legislation. As a student and teacher of Constitutional Law, one of Barack Obama's first goals was a restoration of the balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government. To that end, rather than create some kind of New Deal style alphabet soup of new federal programs and agencies to dole out money directly, the President insisted the legislation use existing legal and regulatory structures for granting federal construction contracts to the states. In other words, while the Republicans were quite correct that the stimulus bill was nothing more and nothing less than the largest pork-barrel spending bill in the country's history, it was done with one-and-a-half eye's on a respect for the inherent Constitutional limitations on federal power.
As the months have passed, even as the President has made good on many of his campaign promises (his record of follow-through is unprecedented, really; he does as he said he would when he campaigned, a tribute to his personal and public integrity, as well as his belief in the necessity of restoring faith in elected officials), the President has been so restrained in his dealings with Congress that many of his liberal supporters have become frustrated with his relative reticence on many matters. Health care reform and the cap-and-trade bill would fare much better if only he would speak out in favor of them; not only his poll numbers, but the poll numbers of measures he favors jump every time he speaks. Yet, precisely because he respects the different roles of the executive and legislative branches, he maintains a certain silence as legislation is moving through Congress, seeing them as the chief arbiters of legislation. They know he may or may not support this or that measure, this or that law, but he is not a legislator, and his role is circumscribed by the Constitution.
In that sense, he has already gone a long way toward righting a very badly listing ship of state. For the first time in decades, we have a President who understands and practices the limitations of the Office of the Chief Executive.
By respecting that limitation, and moving toward a renewed respect for the law, however, part of his government is angering a key group of supporters. LGBT activists are seeking not only an overturning of the Clinton-era Don't As, Don't Tell regulation on gays in the military, but repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sexual minorities should know they have their first serious supporter in the White House, ever, yet are frustrated because Obama seems to be dragging his feet on setting DADT aside, and has actively defended the DOMA in federal court. Why, they ask, would he do so if he truly supports the rights of sexual minorities?
The answer should be clear, at least as far as DOMA is concerned. The President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws. DOMA, for all it is a piece of silly legislation, is still the law of the land. In essence, Obama is trying to get supporters to work on Congress to repeal the law. His hands are tied with respect to enforcement; he has no choice. If the LGBT community wishes DOMA to be set aside, it is the business of Congress to do so. All he can do is carry out the law, not ignore it (again, something the Bush Administration did far too much of; while I am not happy with the way the current DoJ is defending DOMA in court, I understand why it is doing so, and have to nod in agreement, even as I cringe over the context).
On DADT, the problem is a bit more difficult, but my guess is that Obama, having some of the best political instincts I have ever seen (his are far better than the master of politics, Bill Clinton), understands he needs to move carefully, avoiding the kind of circus that erupted in 1993, when Bill Clinton signaled he was going to open military service to sexual minorities. I well remember Bob Dole and Sam Nunn having photo-ops on a submarine to show the close quarters, the implication being that a straight man might be uncomfortable being so close to a gay man (why, I don't know; the idea that gays are on the prowl for every man who comes within their vision is quite silly, really). In order to get DADT repealed, Obama is most likely courting key members of the Defense Department bureaucracy, including most especially those in uniform, who would be most resistant to change. When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, while it seemed radical, the upper reaches of the uniformed ranks were not only ready for it; they had been advocating it. With a military campaign ongoing in Afghanistan and the continued occupation of Iraq still a festering national sore, Obama does not need an internal squabble with senior military officers. While this may seem unfair, I would hazard a guess that once health care reform has passed, in whatever form, he will move forward on these issues sitting on back burner.
The first six months of the Obama Administration have shown us a new style of Presidency, a renewed respect for the rule of law and limitations of the Office of the Presidency, and a reticence to overstep Constitutional boundaries between the Executive and Legislative Branches. By example, he has shown us his respect for the rule of law, even those laws he does not like, and his understanding that he is tasked with enforcing those laws, not ignoring them at whim and will.
Without a doubt, his chances for a second term hinge on restoring the national economy. One thing in his favor is that most of the Bush-era tax cuts were passed with sunset provisions, passing out of law and restoring some taxation to pre-2001 levels in the next 12 to 18 months. While hardly a panacea, they will offer some fiscal relief to a federal government struggling to find ways to fund even the most basic programs, let alone new innovations such as national health care reform. While the prospects are still grim, my guess is that things will be looking better in the next 18 months or so, and by 2012, he will be able to point to a reviving national economy, an improved physical infrastructure, a health care sector where costs have been reduced even as care has expanded and improved as key components of his accomplishments. It won't be easy, and there are even some Democrats out there wary of come of his goals, but I believe that, even within the newly respected boundaries of a far less Imperial Presidency, Barack Obama will succeed, and the nation will be far better for it.
