7 ms·

Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the directi

by revscat 12y ago

Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are several, but I will try to elucidate a few here. First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the direction of various governmental agencies. This true to an extent, but to a much more limited extent than is commonly believed. The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. Since President Obama has had a Congress whose primary tactic is to oppose everything the president wants, regardless of merits, this has severely limited his ability to get policies in place that he has otherwise wanted. This applies both to agencies like the FCC (the current chairman was Obama's third choice, IIRC; the other two were filibustered), as well as the judiciary. Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military, the intelligence agencies, and the federal law enforcement agencies. (You could arguably include the Federal Reserve here, as well.) These are what Lofgren[1] calls the "Deep State". They are almost completely unaffected by elections, especially of Democratic presidents, and seek ever to increase their power and funding. Efforts to rein them in are rarely, if ever, successful. Third, the current state of affairs re: intelligence gathering, etc., began in earnest with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.[2] So while it may be convenient to blame Obama for the current state of government, it is overly simplistic. It has nothing to do with any cult of personality, but rather a simple recognition of the current realities of political power and the various players. [1] http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

300bps 12y ago
The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party [2]. To say that he hasn't gotten his way on the vast majority of cabinet appointments just isn't true. Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. [3] All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve. Your comment is typical of the current rhetoric surrounding attempting to "debunk" the thought that the President has substantial power. The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_State... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_State...
- king_jester 12y ago
  At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals. EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.
  - 300bps 12y ago
    They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
    - noobermin 12y ago
      Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history. This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations. To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?ref=politics http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
      - Amezarak 12y ago
        It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill. These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.
Sven7 12y ago
"First, it is commonly believed..." And why do these common beliefs exist?
- aero142 12y ago
  Because American exceptionalism is a core element of national identity, and includes the idea that all elements of American government are basically democratic. This believe is convenient for those in power who are not very accountable to the electorate and is a deeply held idea by voters in the United States. When deeply held ideas conflict with reality, beliefs will usually stay and reality is the one that is discarded.
SergeyB 12y ago
That`s what it supposed to be like and we wish it was. In reality, starting with Iraq war, Patriot Act, Health Care, Bailouts and much more, didnt have time for debates in Congress. President pushed it, Congress approved. President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. Example Executive Order 13233 (signed by Bush, makes President an exception from Freedom Of Information Act)
- aeturnum 12y ago
  I think you're way too easy on congress (and they will happily pass the buck for unpopular decisions to the president). They could have done more, but chose not to. This is not a case of the president "pushing" their agenda through, but of the president's agent coinciding with the agendas of congress.
- mturmon 12y ago
  "President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress." This is false. The president can change interpretations of law (this is how E.O. 13233 was couched), but cannot pass a new law on his own. This is in Articles I and II of the Constitution. In time of war or crisis, people will allow generous interpretations of the President's role to interpret the law, but time catches up. Obviously Health Care (i.e., ACA) caused huge debate and negotiation with Congress. The Iraq War resolution (the 2002 one) was a different situation in which Congress passed a wishy-washy resolution that was, in typical fashion, over-extended by the Bush administration. But Congress went along.
  - SergeyB 12y ago
    Whatever. You can call it anything you like : act, interpretation, change, results are the same. If President signs piece of paper that restricts your liberties, then he has power to change the law, and that power is substantial - that was my point.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. The executive branch of government executes laws, it does not (and Constitutionally cannot) create them. Executive orders are valid to the extent that they direct actions within the executive branch within the laws binding that branch and apply only powers the President has under the Constitution and laws. The practical distinction may vanish when the other branches do not effectively check the executive when it exceeds its Constitutional power, but that's not inherent in the President heading the Executive branch -- the same is equally true of excesses in other branches, though the unitary nature of the executive provides less of an intra-branch check on abuses by the President than exists for any actor in the legislative or judicial branches (though collective excesses, such as -- as a purely hypothetical example -- the Supreme Court intruding into Congress' Constitutional role in judging the propriety of Presidential electoral votes including the process by which they are assigned -- can still occur and be problematic if left unchecked by the other branches.)
noobermin 12y ago
While I've suspected that the "deep state" as you and your source calls it are "behind the scenes", Obama did come out in support of the intelligence community after the Snowden leaks, so he certainly did not oppose them completely. [1] While I'm happy Obama is supporting net neutrality, I don't find him blameless. [1] You didn't explicitly say that Obama really desired to reign in this "deep state," just that any attempt to do so would be difficult. If you did not mean that, I apologize.
- revscat 12y ago
  No, I did not mean that. And I certainly believe that there are actions that the President could take that would help to promote a more limited role for the intelligence agencies, etc. I do believe, however, that the ability for any President to limit the power of the government is limited both by Congressional action and by the government itself. No agency wants to see its powers reduced, and will oppose any measures which could affect them. Basically, any president which seeks to limit the existing power of government institutions will run into institutional resistance.
fleitz 12y ago
The NSA spying program is authorized by executive order not statute. It's a signature away from ending. And Obama can forward any issues to the DoJ. If he wanted to end the NSA spying program he could simply have Holder charge those involved. Obama is always powerless whenever people want him to do something he doesn't want to do, but to summarily try, convict, and execute a US child is apparently within his power.
fulafel 12y ago
> Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. Compared to most other parliamentary democracies the president in USA is nearly a dictator. So Obama has exceptionally broad abilities in that direction.
- ep103 12y ago
  Compared to most other parliamentary democracies, is not even comparable. In parliamentary democracies, political parties can almost never survive by completely stonewalling the opponent in power, as by nature of being a parliamentary democracy, opposition parties are forced to work together, or form alliances with one another, in order to function.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Totally wrong. In other parliamentary democracies the winning parties/coalitions get on a plate executive and legislative branches simultaneously and big ability to influence judiciary. Sources: I live in one.
  - fulafel 12y ago
    This was about president's powers, not what winning party/coalition in parliamentary elections gets. Parliamentary systems with active (but less powerful vs the US) presidents such as France, Finland, etc. (but re your tangent, minority governments happen and are common in some places. See eg. Denmark)
smsm42 12y ago
>>> Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. Obama has been at work long and hard to make that the case. Since he has been unable to build any relationship with the Congress, and even holding majorities in both Houses his legislation and nominations had hard time going through, he has taken the decision to leverage his regulatory powers to circumvent the Congress as much as possible. It is not something that just happened - it is a deliberate policy which Obama chose. Of course, not him first - many presidents did the same, and some - like FDR - went a lot further than Obama ever did - but Obama is among those who believes in the Deep State and uses and intends to use it to the fullest extent possible. So if there is to be effort to rein them in, Obama is not your guy - he is the opposite of your guy. Of course, the blame does not lie solely or even primarily with Obama - it started long before him and undoubtedly won't end when he retires. But he is contributing as much as he is able to the raise of the power of the regulatory agencies and their ability to conduct policy completely independently of the Congress.

by revscat 12y ago

300bps 12y ago

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party [2]. To say that he hasn't gotten his way on the vast majority of cabinet appointments just isn't true. Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. [3] All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve. Your comment is typical of the current rhetoric surrounding attempting to "debunk" the thought that the President has substantial power. The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_State... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_State...

king_jester 12y ago
At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals. EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.
- 300bps 12y ago
  They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
  - noobermin 12y ago
    Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history. This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations. To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?ref=politics http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
    - Amezarak 12y ago
      It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill. These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.

Sven7 12y ago

"First, it is commonly believed..." And why do these common beliefs exist?

aero142 12y ago
Because American exceptionalism is a core element of national identity, and includes the idea that all elements of American government are basically democratic. This believe is convenient for those in power who are not very accountable to the electorate and is a deeply held idea by voters in the United States. When deeply held ideas conflict with reality, beliefs will usually stay and reality is the one that is discarded.

SergeyB 12y ago

That`s what it supposed to be like and we wish it was. In reality, starting with Iraq war, Patriot Act, Health Care, Bailouts and much more, didnt have time for debates in Congress. President pushed it, Congress approved. President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. Example Executive Order 13233 (signed by Bush, makes President an exception from Freedom Of Information Act)

aeturnum 12y ago
I think you're way too easy on congress (and they will happily pass the buck for unpopular decisions to the president). They could have done more, but chose not to. This is not a case of the president "pushing" their agenda through, but of the president's agent coinciding with the agendas of congress.
mturmon 12y ago
"President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress." This is false. The president can change interpretations of law (this is how E.O. 13233 was couched), but cannot pass a new law on his own. This is in Articles I and II of the Constitution. In time of war or crisis, people will allow generous interpretations of the President's role to interpret the law, but time catches up. Obviously Health Care (i.e., ACA) caused huge debate and negotiation with Congress. The Iraq War resolution (the 2002 one) was a different situation in which Congress passed a wishy-washy resolution that was, in typical fashion, over-extended by the Bush administration. But Congress went along.
- SergeyB 12y ago
  Whatever. You can call it anything you like : act, interpretation, change, results are the same. If President signs piece of paper that restricts your liberties, then he has power to change the law, and that power is substantial - that was my point.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. The executive branch of government executes laws, it does not (and Constitutionally cannot) create them. Executive orders are valid to the extent that they direct actions within the executive branch within the laws binding that branch and apply only powers the President has under the Constitution and laws. The practical distinction may vanish when the other branches do not effectively check the executive when it exceeds its Constitutional power, but that's not inherent in the President heading the Executive branch -- the same is equally true of excesses in other branches, though the unitary nature of the executive provides less of an intra-branch check on abuses by the President than exists for any actor in the legislative or judicial branches (though collective excesses, such as -- as a purely hypothetical example -- the Supreme Court intruding into Congress' Constitutional role in judging the propriety of Presidential electoral votes including the process by which they are assigned -- can still occur and be problematic if left unchecked by the other branches.)

noobermin 12y ago

While I've suspected that the "deep state" as you and your source calls it are "behind the scenes", Obama did come out in support of the intelligence community after the Snowden leaks, so he certainly did not oppose them completely. [1] While I'm happy Obama is supporting net neutrality, I don't find him blameless. [1] You didn't explicitly say that Obama really desired to reign in this "deep state," just that any attempt to do so would be difficult. If you did not mean that, I apologize.

revscat 12y ago
No, I did not mean that. And I certainly believe that there are actions that the President could take that would help to promote a more limited role for the intelligence agencies, etc. I do believe, however, that the ability for any President to limit the power of the government is limited both by Congressional action and by the government itself. No agency wants to see its powers reduced, and will oppose any measures which could affect them. Basically, any president which seeks to limit the existing power of government institutions will run into institutional resistance.

fleitz 12y ago

The NSA spying program is authorized by executive order not statute. It's a signature away from ending. And Obama can forward any issues to the DoJ. If he wanted to end the NSA spying program he could simply have Holder charge those involved. Obama is always powerless whenever people want him to do something he doesn't want to do, but to summarily try, convict, and execute a US child is apparently within his power.

fulafel 12y ago

> Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. Compared to most other parliamentary democracies the president in USA is nearly a dictator. So Obama has exceptionally broad abilities in that direction.

ep103 12y ago
Compared to most other parliamentary democracies, is not even comparable. In parliamentary democracies, political parties can almost never survive by completely stonewalling the opponent in power, as by nature of being a parliamentary democracy, opposition parties are forced to work together, or form alliances with one another, in order to function.
venomsnake 12y ago
Totally wrong. In other parliamentary democracies the winning parties/coalitions get on a plate executive and legislative branches simultaneously and big ability to influence judiciary. Sources: I live in one.
- fulafel 12y ago
  This was about president's powers, not what winning party/coalition in parliamentary elections gets. Parliamentary systems with active (but less powerful vs the US) presidents such as France, Finland, etc. (but re your tangent, minority governments happen and are common in some places. See eg. Denmark)

smsm42 12y ago

>>> Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. Obama has been at work long and hard to make that the case. Since he has been unable to build any relationship with the Congress, and even holding majorities in both Houses his legislation and nominations had hard time going through, he has taken the decision to leverage his regulatory powers to circumvent the Congress as much as possible. It is not something that just happened - it is a deliberate policy which Obama chose. Of course, not him first - many presidents did the same, and some - like FDR - went a lot further than Obama ever did - but Obama is among those who believes in the Deep State and uses and intends to use it to the fullest extent possible. So if there is to be effort to rein them in, Obama is not your guy - he is the opposite of your guy. Of course, the blame does not lie solely or even primarily with Obama - it started long before him and undoubtedly won't end when he retires. But he is contributing as much as he is able to the raise of the power of the regulatory agencies and their ability to conduct policy completely independently of the Congress.