22 May 2001
The Activist Presidency
Lately, I've been seeing a fair number of articles from mainstream press (not, say, the ever-hysterical Salon) speculating that President Bush is setting himself up to lose control of Congress, if not in 2002 then certainly by 2004, because of his "unpopular" stands on "the environment" and "energy" and other issues. That may be true, but for that to be true, Democrats have to offer their own solutions after bashing his "unpopular" stands (it's unpopular to formulate a policy to avoid rolling blackouts? Hmm). That's tougher to do, and something the Dems haven't done. Instead, they've simply opposed every significant proposal from the administration, NO NO NO NO with additional focus group soundbites like "drill" "poison water" etc. Some pundits have pointed out this is a page from the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans (although those pundits might remember that Gingrich won control of Congress largely by saying NO to hugely unpopular ideas -- complete government takeover of healthcare being one -- AND by offering a positive, limited-government alternative).
Pundits who think Congress will be lost in 2002 may turn out to be right. But I think they are unwise to underestimate the power of an Activist Presidency -- and the weakness of of a minority party that can only say "NO NO NO" to its every proposal. Democrats got rolled by Ronald Reagan's tax cuts (if not limited government ideas in general) and his principled anti-Communism because all they could say was "NO NO NO" (and their ideology was simply wrong). There has not been a conservative activist President since the first two years of Reagan's first administration. It's too early to compare this George Bush to Reagan, but it's certainly safe to say his Presidency is conservative and activist, and has put the Dems largely on the defensive. Granted, he's taken some chances -- there is great potential for Dems to spin the energy policy just as they have (paybacks to "big oil," polluting the air, and trying to kill all the "children" he can). But taking some chances -- instead of going for politically popular, quick fixes that turn out not to be fixes -- is a sign of leadership. Today's journalists have little experience with political leadership after the cynicism of the Clinton/Gore years and the leadership vacuum that WAS elder Bush. That's why they could be mistaken on future control of Congress (although redistricting, which generally is going to favor Republicans, will also play a role) and this new Activist President.
Time will tell.
[Posted @ 11:50 AM CST]
