Here’s a topic I’ve pondered over for a while. I’m not even sure which side I’d pick.
Let’s say you had a choice between your party controlling the White House but having an opposition Congress, or your party controlling Congress but having a president of the opposite party. Which would you choose? Why?
Discuss.
Assuming we have a competent commander in chief I’d prefer to have the Presidency. The President can set the national agenda in a way that’s hard for Congress to do. And even when Congress does take the lead on something it’s possible to co-opt it for your means (look at Homeland Security and prescription drugs).
WH: Enormous power from the “Bully Pulpit”, and no Senator or Congressman can put things on an agenda like a president.
Congress: The actual legislative power, the actually nuts and bolts of lawmaking.
It’s the power of persuasian and agenda-setting versus actual political lawmaking. I’d say it would be better to have a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, instead of vice versa. Dems -and Libs- are more about ‘nuances’ than the Republicans, and it would be better with a Democratic Congress dealing with the intrisinc details in the lawmaking, than a Democratic President using a big brush and leaving the details to the Republicans.
The White House. The president can through executive order , the impoundment of funds, & the veto of legislation far more than Congress. Don’t forget the power of appointment for both judges, & heads of various federal agencies.
WH. Long term impact on the judiciary. Even if a president gets no shot at the ‘Supremes’, every appointment effects many lives. The current bunch of dirtbags can pass all kinds of laws pandering to the right, and those laws can get eroded, replaced, or whatever, once the majority of Amercians get tired of the Religious Theocracy approach to governance. But, put an extreme, activist judge on the bench and you may have to wait a lifetime to get rid of the stench.
-jjf
Depends on who that President would be. Kerry got the nomination because a plurality during the early primaries were as wrong about his “electability” as Shrub was about WMD. Electability doesn’t correspond to ability to lead, to govern.
And anyone elected as the least worst among a slew of bad choices is likely to do more harm than good.
This question sent me to Hamlet (III,i) with thoughts of writing a parody of “2-b, or not 2-b”. I spent a good deal of time going over that and finally decided it’s much too daunting for a sunny day in July.
I used to wonder something like this about our government here in Washington state. BTW, I hate having to write “Washington state” each time. Apparently the original plan was to name this place Columbia (like the River) Someone got worried that that might get confused with District of Columbia, so they changed it to Washington. Bright, huh?
Anyway, after 30+ years of living here I have concluded that – no doubt colored my point of view as a state university professor – it was always best to have a Republican governor and a Democratic legislature. Our Dem governors were terrible. In the area I knew well, Higher Ed, they appointed awful regents and trustees, mostly ideologues and party hacks. The Reps appointed outstanding members who really did understand what a Board of Directors is supposed to do.
On the other side, everything I can think of as a real accomplishment in this state depended on Democratic control of the legislature. The Republicans have always been both stingy and stupid (i.e., whacko). It really has mattered which party is in control.
I’m not sure how this translates to my choice at the federal level, but there are glimmers of parallels for this choice in “the other Washington” as well. I think the Democratic president (in my lifetime anyway), like the Rhinestone Cowboy, has had to do a lot of compromisin’ on the way to his horizon. JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton – all were made to deliver much less than they had to offer, in part because they agreed to (“Don’t ask” is the best recent example, Vietnam the most abominable). The exception, for me, was Truman, who found himself thrust into greatness.
Republican presidents (until now – the current addle pate really is an aberration) seem t have made it to the top without giving up goals, if they even had any (Ike, Ford?). They seem to have a better grasp of how boards of directors work, and how to cope with those (Congress) who control the purse strings. I’m not saying I liked their policies, but it seems to me they were more able to actually achieve what they promised (and more in some cases, e.g., Nixon).
I can think of any number of Congressional Democrats who’ve made outstanding contributions to the political “flavor” of my state and my nation. Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnussen, Patty Murray, Jim McDermott. From the state I grew up in, California: Phil Burton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, especially within the State legislature Jes Unruh and Willie Brown. Nationally I think of people (just at the moment – it would take hours to recite any relevant history) like Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi. Gotta mention some history – Tip O’Neill, Sam Ervin, William Proxmire, Wayne Morse, the pre-compromisin’ Hubert Humphrey, and on and on. In fact I think the Democrats I don’t care for are those with presidential ambitions (Biden). it seems to rob them of their soul.
Give me the Congress any day. It is really designed to, and sometime does, hold the president in check … with purse strings, hearings, soundbites. The presidency, in contrast, seems designed to get away with whatever it can get away with.
Besides, I think Congress people are one helluva lot more fun. Or at least they used to be before they, too, could amass enough butt-kissin money to hire pollsters and focus groups and hairdressers. Mark Twain found them amusing enough to refer to Congress as the National Asylum for the Insane. I don’t recall him saying much of anything about any President.
Maybe it’s as simple as the old philosophical “problem of the one and the many”. Presidents get very bloated views of themselves; it’s hard to be too overblown when you’re competing with 99 or or 434 other knuckleheads, every one of whom knows that at least half of their constituents consider them to be liars, thieves and assholes (sounds like a Cher song, doesn’t it?).
So I vote: Congress, hands down.
I think C J Millard raises an important point. A president tops an entire federal bureaucracy that has a lot of (regulatory) power. Appointments and nominations aren’t limited to judges.
And Congress can’t always block some of these low-level jobs that matter.
I’d want to keep the presidency, with foreign policy at the top of my priorities list. (Clearly a reaction to malpractice of the recent era). Added to the other commentary about appointments of judges and priority setting in gov. agencies, the presidency should be able to implement more change.
As Clinton saw, however, with hundreds of people sniping at you, it’s hard to get any domestic policy done.
I’d wish I could say congress, for the sake of a stronger farm team, but I can’t see that congress has proven a very successful launching pad for presidency.
Depends on my congressional majority. If I’ve got a veto-proof juggernaut in both houses then the President is basically my bitch. I can pass whatever laws I want and if his nominee wants a hearing then he or she must fetch me a grape and peel it.
If the alternative is a weak Congressional majority and poor party discipline, versus a POTUS with the charisma and political skill of a Clinton, then give me the POTUS.
You failed to ask about the third branch of government. If I could have, say, seven of nine then I’ll take SCOTUS any day.
I’ve never much cared for divided government,
because it means nothing much gets done, and yet
the people, in the presidential election, have endorsed a specific agenda. What sense does it make
to have the people’s will constantly thwarted by
the opposition party?
That’s the theory. In practice, well, what I wouldn’t give to have a Democratic Congress to stop this mad man!
Given a choice, I’d always take the president. The
president I vote for best represents my view of where the country should be going.
Boy, that’s a tough one. I like the idea of the President being of my party just for the fact that there would be a better chance of him or her having an agenda I could agree with or at least live with. If he or she had a good raport with the public and Congress it would be much easier to get the agenda through.
On the other hand, having both Houses of Congress with the majority from my party would be a big plus, too. If it was a large enough majority it would mean that presidential vetos would be an easy override. But even if my party had control by an 80/20 margin, there would be that “ultra” group from the other side of the aisle who would try to get things tied up in commitee meetings and keep anything from going anywhere.
I guess I’d have to say President. The President does represent our nation all over the world and I would rather have one that holds to my ideals then someone who does not.
I’d still like a Congress that is 80/20 in the favor of my party. I’m sure that will never happen though. It is usually rare when one party is in the White House and controls both Houses of Congress. Although, it has happened before, such is the case right now, and such was the case during Reagan’s second term I do believe.
I’ve been out in my shop all afternoon listening to the M’s (possibly – it’s the ninth inning) taking a four-game sweep from the division-leading Angels in LA. And I’ve had a few more thoughts about this.
First, I think my favorite Democrat, Jefferson, would be on my side on this. Congress. It was Adams who sought to create an imperial Presidency. Jefferson suggested every device he could to limit the presidency.
Second, think of California. Here was a popular celebrity governor, Ahnold, going to “take it to the people” if the Burton’s Democratic legislature didn’t do his bidding. Legislators can bring a popular executive down if they have the number, organization and courage. They ultimately have the clout, if not the constitutional assignment, to demand agenda items, too.
Three, the M’s just won. Which proves I’m on the right side.
It’s a tough call, but I’d have to go with the Presidency too. Unless, of course, we’re talking about having a veto-overriding majority in Congress. Then I’d pick Congress. Not just because the Prez couldn’t veto us, but because it would just be too hard to fuck with such a large majority. And just imagine how Bush would have done things differently if he saw a serious chance of an impeachment on the horizon. Hell, I betcha he wouldn’t have been a half bad President, had there been a ballsy Congress to offset him. People need a little opposition to keep themselves honest.
I would definitely favor a Democratic Congress with Republican president. (I’m a Democrat.) Reason: Congress creates legislation and controls the purse strings, and can override vetoes if necessary.
one word: impeachment.
I’d love to get a Democratic congress in 2006 that would have investigative and subpoena powers with which to rip the lid off the stinking can of lies that the administration is trying to keep closed down. President Joke would also have a tough time getting his little protonazi nominees into the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court if he had to get them through a judiciary committee that had a Democratic chair and majority. The executive branch is in need of a major enema, I’d just hope the Democrats once in power would be up to the task of wading through the shit they’re going to have to deal with for the next few years, possibly including the second (and this time deserved) impeachment of a president in the last ten years.
I’d have to say Congress.
Really.
The Presidency is functional only in that it can prevent things from happening. The President is kind of like a cheerleader who can say no. The real function of the office is to veto legislation.
Congress on the other hand, has powers over the executive branch. It can pass legislation without fear of veto in many cases, something the executive branch is actually quite limited in. The Presidency has the power of executive order, but that power is limited, used rarely, and subject to much review.
The status of Commander in Chief is really over discussed IMHO; it is at the whim of Congress as per the constitution, and no matter what anyone says, the Congress has a duty to act in a declarative way for all matters of war, if they do not, they are negligent and should be removed at the ballot box.
The fact of the matter is that most recent wars, including the first and second Iraq (Oil) Wars and the War in Afghanistan, have been fought without a declaration of war; almost certain violations of the sprit of the constitution, in specific the wording in Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) The Congress shall have the power to declare war.
In practice, the office of the President has a large degree of popular support in compelling Congress to act, but that power is merely historic and is not in fact based in law.
In summation, the Congress, while traditionally perceived as subservient to the Executive branch, is really granted wide latitude in acting without Presidential approval, and holds the keys to impeachment, something vital to the balance of power.
Congress is king in this country.
Comments are closed.