Obama's Weak Congress

The recent back and forth, they-said-we-said between the CIA and Congress over unknown classified intelligence programs is another example of a Congress that simply flounders from one issue to the next. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic gamely summarized the situation (emphasis mine):

"Because the executive branch retains a stranglehold on regulations about the disclosure of classified information, there are very few ways for member of Congress who learn about objectionable, classified programs to reveal their discomfort. They can write a classified letter. They can risk prosecution by revealing the information publicly.

Or they can do what a gaggle of House Democrats did yesterday: band together, suggest that the CIA misled them about a specific program, and wait for journalists to uncover the details."

The image that last sentence conjures isn't a good one: a bunch of House Democrats in phalanx formation grimly waiting reinforcements, or vindication, or the passing of another celebrity. Between Congress and our nation's governors, one would be hard pressed to explain away the shit-show that is our elected populace. Luckily for the Democrats, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta told congress that former Vice President Dick Cheney instructed the CIA to withhold information from Congress. While this ongoing investigation (now Attorney General Eric Holder looks about ready to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the US's practice of torture) will probably dial down the partisan nose-flicking over this issue, it's yet another example of a Congress -- specifically, the Democratic Party -- too bogged down to fight for itself, to rise above and above all else help lead this country out of the fire.

Publius nails it (props for the conversion of "to wank" into an adjective):

"Frankly, the country would be better off if Dems were 100% certain that they would lose seats in 2010. That would light a fire to get this stuff done -- and would convince the "centrists" to quit being so wankerous."

After a spike in September of 2001, Congress's approval rating has dropped precipitously, lingering at 14 percent at the end of 2008 before shooting to 33 percent with the turnover of administrations. Looking at Gallup's twitching graph, I can't help but wonder at most of the Reagan and some of the Clinton years, where it wasn't insane to think of Congress with a 40 percent national approval rating -- a Congress that almost clocked in at .500.

When Harper's ran a cover story titled "Barack Hoover Obama," the magazine dropped a less than subtle comparison of the Great Depression to today's economic crisis, pitting Hoover's well-intentioned mishandling against FDR's dogged mastery. This Congress, President Obama's first, is chest-deep in Important Legislation: health care, Waxman-Markley, EFCA -- hell, President Obama is addressing calls for a second stimulus in his press conferences. This confluence of legislative priorities, rising unemployment, the very real prospect of a jobless recovery, a question mark over Iran, and the exit from Iraq is the genetic make-up of President Obama's "moment." He either breaks right into greatness or descends into infamy.

And yet that has been the impression of Obama for over two years now. What started as star-eyed adoration from the young snowballed into respect -- first grudging, then steadfast -- from the old. When the financial sector melted down last fall, the electorate watched as John McCain flailed and Obama kept calm. That sealed it: The man is Presidential, he will do well by us.

Since Inauguration, President Obama's legislative agenda (and its progress) bears Congress' signature mark of bloated delay because he has left the finding of brass tacks in their care. It is this passive approach -- at least, passive in the eyes of a good swath of the liberal blogosphere -- that's predicating the "Hoover" label from Harper's.

While no one expects Congress to say "How high?" when Obama says "Jump" (and even if that did happen, after a brief moment of bipartisanship the exact measurements would be broken down into several subcommittees full of backbencher House members who would hold the legislation hostage for a few pork projects and an amendment that either formally declares the U.S. a socialist state or formally grants the secession of Alaska and Texas from the Union), the public has come to expect the Executive Branch to the lead on all things.

As new information regarding Cheney -- and what he may or may not have told the CIA to withhold from Congress -- unfolds, no one will suddenly bring their hand to their forehead and realize that Cheney oversaw an unprecedented consolidation of power in the White House over issues of national security and intelligence. We've known that for a long time, now. As Cheney manipulated channels of government to further his oversight and control, President Bush was able to whip Congress into prolonging the Iraq War by pushing through more and more funding without any formulation of an exit strategy.

The Bush Administration left behind a legacy of failed ideology, one that numbed our expectation of the executive branch -- and, concurrently, executive authority. The vacuum of authority that characterized Bush's last 18 months in office was only made worse by the dithering of a Congress that was either too scattered to direct policy or too preoccupied with the day's news cycle. In this backwater of legislative momentum we look to Obama.

In 1917, New Republic founding father Walter Lippmann wrote, "Only the most revolutionary changes in the congressional system can save representative government in America." As for the Presidency:

"The concentration of all vitality in the Presidency has become something like a disease in which there is feverish activity at the center, a cold inertia in all the parts. We expect of one man that he shall speak for the nation, formulate its needs, translate them into a program.

We expect that man to instill these purposes and this program into a parasitic party system, drive his own party to enact them, and create an untainted administrative hierarchy though which to realize his plans. [...] The President is burdened with the task of a benevolent despot and then denied the authority and resources to even make a despotism effective."

While the President is not nearly as cynical as Lippmann, I fear a Congress that, while not so much parasitic, is so fearful of being attached to any of Obama's failures that it misses every opportunity to be a part of his successes. And in doing so -- in avoiding the big answers to the big questions at the end of the day, in wondering whether history will break for or against Obama -- we must all accept a diluted politics.

A shorter version of this column appeared at Splice Today.

Comments

[rbloom]

Agreed. Where is Lyndon Johnson when we need him?

[Samalabear]

The importance of a strong third party becomes evident, a party made up of people from both the Dems and Repubs that have vision and guts.

[ReedYoung]

If We the People are serious about changing this country for the better as quickly as you suggest then we need to take candidate Obama at his word: no matter how hard you might have campaigned last fall, that was not the hard part. That was to begin January 21, and I think a lot of us conveniently forgot that campaign promise of his sometime in December.

Congress is still taking e-mails, faxes and phone calls. Lots of them, if lots are transmitted.

[getsix]

i am just shocked that the vp ordered the cia and the military to kill terrorist and bad guys i mean what is the wold coming to when we kill bad guys who intend to blow up things like school buses and buildings full of people

[allonfla]

how gullible are you? Why would a program to find and kill terrorists need to be covered up? Wasn't the regular FBI and CIA good enough for him? Did this man think he was in the show Alias?

[jomira]

How do we know that they were all "terrorists" and "bad guys"?

[mergina]

Obama's stance on Cheney and his many crimes is just like Obama's stance towards much of the problems going on in the world, one of dangerous naivete. He does not seem to be able to grasp, (or does not want to) the fact that there are forces at work on this planet that one cannot think their way around. They NEED to be confronted for the evil that they are. They need to be challenged and checked and kept in place because if they are not, despots will rule the day EVERYWHERE on this planet. If past presidents that were forced to deal with the likes of the Soviet Union had been as 'policy soft' as Obama, they would have eaten us alive along with so many who looked to us as their only hope.

[ReedYoung]

Have another Kool-Aid.

[JimR]

Don't you have to go? Isn't Rush on now?

[blah2 0]

Obama is the only voice among a sea of Republican­s/conserva­tives. This is what makes it hard for him, being the only messenger that people care to listen to while the Republicans can garner media attention with just any one just by saying a lot of outrageous stuff.

[AnotherTry]

Um, Democrats have the majority in both houses of congress. Obama and the dems have no excuse.

[Samalabear]

They don't have an excuse. The crap regarding health, alone, is just plain disgusting. Any sane person watching the Wendell Potter interview on Bill Moyers would come away saying health insurance companies need to fade to the back. He testified before Congress. Were they listening? This is not some disgruntled employee trying to bury his ex-employer. But Congress is so fractured, so bought and so corrupt, the Repubs just don't get it and Obama apparently gets it but is unwilling to lead a fight against these parasitic corporate darlings of Wall Street.

[dizmo4]

That pretty much sums it up. There's no real leadership in Congress. Reid is an empty suit that caves into Republican threats. Pelosi, while better than Reid, seems to have limited appeal. The times I've seen her, she always comes off a bit awkward and uncomfortable.

Someone in Congress needs to pick up the Health Care issue, Energy reform, EFCA and run with it. Forget about bi-partsainship or the "Decorum" of the Senate. Its time for Congress to get things done.

[JimR]

Agree. Both Reid and Pelosi have got to go.

[MyNameIsJames]

CHANGE cannot be passive - Mr. President.

Put on your combat boots - lace them up tight. Then go into the top drawer get out your brass knuckles and lets go after them.

[mlmn08]

Absolutely right, toughness was not meant to be easy and fun.

[allonfla]

neither was running a country which the Left seems to think is so easy.

[Jamiess]

We need our representatives to focus on governing rather than re-election. To remove the impetus for campaigning when they are being paid to work, we should eliminate the option for consecutive terms. Our current system requires that politicians do two jobs (governing and campaigning) at once if they want to continue making a difference. I'd rather my money be spent in a more focused and efficient manner. Twice as much work could be done by any public servant if they didn't switch to campaigning mid-term. To further increase efficiency, we could reduce the frequency of the learning curve by lengthening terms by a year or two. I would certainly want to allow re-election on a non-consecutive basis. If someone is good at the job, there is no reason to ban their return, only to require that campaigning be done outside of the paid work hours. This also ensures the influx of new ideas, and decreases the opportunity for corruption, while allowing our leaders to give us their undivided attention.

[minnehot]

So... let me get this right...Nancy Pelosi and her congressional collegues object to this 'secret' CIA program that was to kill every member of Al Qaeda on sight (close range no less). Dick Cheney is to blame! That nasty man, trying to kill those responsible for killing 3000 Americans on 9/11!

They lied to me! Whimper, whimper. Let's investigate!

Yes, let's investigate - let's have ALL the information released on how Bush/Cheney protected America at home and today with our enemies down to their last days in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan being zinged by Predators and Reapers with Hellfire missiles. No talking, just action - the way the vast majority of Americans like it.

P.S. We will also be able to see, live and very close up, how stupid the Democratic Congressional leadership really is! Poor Rahm, he must be having a bad day!?

[Andrew Sargus Klein - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes and no, minnehot. It wasn't possible for the Speaker and Congressional Dems to oppose this program because they didn't know about it. And yes, Dick Cheney is to blame for Congress not knowing about this program. We're not talking approval or disapproval, we're talking about knowledge as the starting point for all decisions on policy (images of a war-torn, WMD-less Iraq float before my very eyes).

As for your point about Bush/Cheney's stellar record, I hope you don't think the Bush Administration was inaugurated on September 12, 2001, and has had a perfect record of keeping this country safe. As for those drones you speak so well of? Yeah, the more people they kill, the more Afghans and Pakistanis see us as cowards, plain and simple.

[DaveVentura]

I don't see why Congress would have to know unless someone from Queda was actually assassinated via this program.and even then I don't see it as a big deal. Does a Marine corps sniper have congress notified every time one of them is about to hit a target? No, there are all sorts of snipers and the like that congress doesn't have to be personally notified about. It seems like trying to make political hay about this would cause far more damage to our intelligence capabilities versus whatever partisan gain would be had.

[Mustang Sally]

Thank you for that factual response to emotional jingoism.

Fanned and Faved!!

[cminca]

Ummm--just a question--if Bush/Cheney was so damn successful, why did 9/11 happen in the first place? Why don't we have OBL?

The answers--

#1--The Bush administration--in their incredible hubris--figured they knew better than Clinton on EVERYTHING and if the warning came from the Clinton era/personnel they ignored it.

#2--Iraq has oil. That was the real mission accomplished. Who cares if OBL isn't captured? and the House of Saud is happier if he isn't.

Damn straight Congress needs to know.

[MyNameIsJames]

If Bush/ Cheney had kept the country safe there would not have been a 9/11. After the worst terroist disaster on American soil since the Civil War - how can you say they kept us safe? Its a joke!

[JimR]

Yes, Bush and Cheney did such a good job fighting terrorism, the Taliban is stronger than ever.

Have some more Kool-Aid.

[expired]

Sounds eerily like what the cons do all the time, band together, lock step . . .