Leaving His Lane And Swerving Into Oncoming Traffic

So I was reading The Hill this morning, as any good former Hill staffer would, and happened across a headline: “Obama defends ‘Louisiana purchase’”. The issue of legislators using add-ons to persuade their colleagues to vote for a bill they otherwise might not support – setting that issue aside for a moment, I sit here firmly planted on my couch and imagine myself as a presidential spokesperson, or perhaps an advisor to the President before he goes out to exchange blows with the press. I wonder to myself, what would I say, or how would I advise him to respond to such a loaded question?

The answer is quite simple in my mind: “I will not seek to support or defend the methods of negotiation and compromise that takes place in the Legislative Branch of government. The Constitution grants that body the right and authority to define its own rules of operation, and dictates that it is Congress that legislates, and the President who implements the laws that are passed by Congress and signed by the President. I think the better judge of Congress’s activities and means of negotiation are the people who elect the Members to represent them.”

That type of answer may easily come to my mind because I am in the midst of reading about Abraham Lincoln. I just finished a book on Thomas Jefferson, and prior to that Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington. These are all Presidents who saw a clear line of separation between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. To varying degrees between each of these presidents, they all pretty well stayed out (at least, publicly) of the day to day tussle of Congressional activity. They set forth their views on a matter of national policy, and encouraged Congress along those lines, but then stayed above (or outside of) the fray while Congress duked it out. So, as one who is generally satisfied with staying in his lane (the lane, in this case, being powers delegated to the Executive Branch by the Constitution), the response to the question about the Louisiana Purchase seems quite simple. “That’s their business, and the business of their voters.”

Then there’s the political reason on why the President should keep himself out of it. This one is even easier. Congress, as a body, has a magnificent ability to never shine. Can anyone (other than professional pollsters out there) recall when Congress’s approval rating has ever been above 50%? Certainly, there have been the “Profiles in Courage” instances when individual Members have stood out with a sterling performance, but the body of Congress, as a whole, is remarkably unremarkable.

This is not a slap at Congress on my part. Indeed, few people understand, let alone appreciate, the tedium that is policy making, the struggle that is political compromise, and the ugliness that is sausage making. All of this is necessary, but to the uninitiated it is pure ugliness. And few people, I think, in the general American populace, have the experience of getting 218 people with diverse backgrounds, opinions, experiences, interests, and constituencies on the same page (in the House), then reconcile that collective compromise with another body of decision makers who make decisions based on another set of rules, considerations, and concerns. Shoot, I can’t even to get 5 random people to agree whether or not the Cubs are a team worth rooting for (seems obvious to me). So why, as a Presidential advisor, would I advise my boss to step into the ugly, but necessary, mess known as legislating?

But, the temptation to condemn such obviously misguided tactics as the “Louisiana Purchase” or the “Cornhusker Kickback” may just be too difficult for a modern President to resist. The honored and esteemed station of the President of the United States can do no wrong in taking a stance against the legislative version of “the ends justify the means” rationalization. However, as I read on in the article I found that President Obama actually did try to justify it. He did get into the mess.

Do the ends justify the means? That is a philosophical question whose answer lies within the wiring of every individual’s own mind. Were the “Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback” means to buy votes, or were they matters of policy that could stand on their own, but for the sake of legislative efficiency, added to the Health Care Bill?

I, as a voter, have my opinion on those questions, as well, I suppose, do all the other voters. But President Obama did himself no favors in getting mixed into the matters outside of his Executive Branch lane, and inside the ugly mess that is the Legislative Branch.