AP American Government

The Fresh Food "Issue Network"

This morning's New York Times carried an interesting article about a "food revolution" that is underway in  parts of the U.S., with activists of various sorts advocating the use of fresh foods and local ingredients and the avoidance of processed foods.  There's nothing particularly new about this advocacy.  But what makes the article interesting is that it is, unintentionally, a good look at how an old "iron triangle" surrounding federal subsidies to growers of grain (especially corn and soybeans) has been supplemented, if not supplanted, by an "issue network" that includes a much more diverse group of people with genuine input into the policymaking process: celebrity chefs, journalists, scholars, and the like.  

The Presidential Bubble

Today's Washington Post carries a really interesting article about something we've been talking about in class: the isolating bubble that surrounds presidents in the White House -- and Obama's eagerness to pierce it.

Crisis = Leadership Opportunity

I'd like you to read a really fine post by Jack Balkin (a Constitutional Law professor at Yale) about what he calls "the presidential politics of emergency."  He compares the way that Bush framed the terrorism threat to expand his power with the way Obama is framing the economic threat to expand his power.  Balkin's understanding of presidential power comports with what we have been discussing in class: to be able to lead boldly, a president needs both skill and luck.  The latter comes largely in the form of opportunity, especially a crisis, which allows the president to gather focus and power unto himself.  Balkin writes:

The more severe the crisis, the greater the need for bold, decisive action, and the greater the need for the country to rally around its leader, to whom the public looks to resolve the crisis. To do this, the leader needs the support of all to surmount the very serious problems that the country faces. This not a time for selfishness, narrowmindedness, or obstruction. Everyone must work together. The President, in turn, must set the agenda. He must lead. He must present a plan; Congress must work out the details and ratify it without delay or obstruction.
. . .
Both Bush and Obama have made use of the President's power to define emergency and crisis in ways that shape others imaginations, and in ways that legitimate the steps they assert must be taken. Bush insisted that he needed vast powers to detain, interrogate and make war; he pointed to Iraq and insisted that it was a continuation of the war against Al Qaeda. Obama insists that he must have an enormous stimulus to jump start the economy, he must take control of major banking institutions to stave off financial meltdown, and he must propose a remarkably ambitious new budget with new programs for infrastructure development, health care, education, energy conservation and environmental protection to sustain economic capacity and global competitiveness in the future. Given the crisis we face, the only way forward, Obama is saying, is to reject Reaganism and embark on a Second New Deal focused on guarantees of health care for all Americans, financial regulation and/or government control of financial institutions, environmental protection, energy independence, and infrastructure investment. That is to say, just as Bush identified his crisis to justify the policies he pursued, so Obama has defined his crisis to justify his proposed solutions.

Balkin is not saying there is no difference between Bush and Obama.  And he points out that "your view about the legitimacy of a particular use of the Presidential politics of emergency depends on which of the two men you support and your view about whether they have accurately described the nature and the scope of the situation before the country."  Quite right.   He adds:  "If there really is an emergency along the lines described by the President, then of course, it is very different than if there is no emergency, or it is not as severe as the President says it is, or if the nature of the problem is different than the President describes, for then the solutions are the wrong solutions, and will lead the country in the wrong direction."

But trying to sort out the correctness of the assessments made by Bush and Obama is not Balkin's focus in this piece.

Instead, I want to focus on what the two men share-- the similar way in which the modern President-- whether Bush or Obama-- uses the formulation and articulation of crisis and emergency in order to take control of the political agenda, shape the nation's political imagination, and make resistance seem, at least in the short run, parochial, narrow minded and even futile.

This essay is worth reading. 

"A Passion for Anonymity"

As we discussed in class this past week, the Brownlow Committee, which in 1937 recommended the creation of an institutionalized White House staff ("The president needs help!"), said that the ideal White House staffer would be someone with a "passion for anonymity," an eagerness to fade into the background and sublimate his own ego and ambitions in the service of the President's interests.

See what Politico had to say today about Phil Schiliro, the chief legislative liaison in the Obama White House.

The Long Islander is "the consummate staffer," said Christopher Lu, Obama's cabinet secretary and a Schiliro protégé. "He just enjoys staying in the background."

Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

See this interesting profile of Rahm Emanuel from The New Yorker magazine.  Emanuel is Obama's chief of staff in the White House Office.  It's a timely article, given our subject of the moment in class. 

Obama's Re-framing

Here's an excellent essay on President Obama's effort to "frame" the way we think about economic success.

Congress at Work

Here's a nice example of how members of Congress posture and strut about the big picture, but make sure that the pork projects they want are in legislation and that they are able to do some credit-claiming about them.  Ugh.

Also, the Senate filibuster is very much on people's minds these days.  Here are several opinions about the filibuster.  From Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, and Steve Benen. 

I hate the filibuster.  It ruins the Senate.  It ruins the basic ideas of democracy and of majority rights.

Lobbyists

Here's a review from the "Books" section of today's Globe of a new book by Robert Kaiser on the corrosive effects of lobbying and campaign contributions on American government.

Political Capital

This coming week, we will be talking in class about the reservoir of political capital that a newly elected president usually enjoys in the early weeks and months of his first term.  This "honeymoon period" is the best opportunity for a new president, probably at the peak of his popularity, to use his public support to get Congress to pass legislation he wants.

Here is a good article about this phenomenon from today's New York Times.  I urge you to read it.

Conferees Reach Agreement on Stimulus Bill

I am astonished that House and Senate conferees already have reached an agreement on a bill reconciling the differences between the versions passed by each house.  A bill could be on President Obama's desk for his signature by Friday.