What Makes for a Strong President?
Just
before the recent elections, I half-attentively watched Norman Ornstein
explaining to a television interviewer that President Bush was taking an
enormous risk by campaigning for so many marginal Republican candidates. The
reason I was half-attentive is that it wasn't the first such analysis I'd heard.
The
premise of such interviews, though never quite stated, was that Bush was a bit
of a dunce for not realizing that he would get blamed if a number of these GOP
candidates were to lose. A corollary offered by a number of other analysts (the
one I best recall is Larry Sabato) was that Bush would really be better off in
2004 if Congress (or at least the Senate) were in Democratic hands, for then he
would have a more plausible scapegoat when things go wrong. If Bush were just a
little smarter, he would realize his surest path to reelection is the one
followed by Bill Clinton in 1995-96, and he'd be working a little less hard at
electing Republicans in 2002.
Though
this kind of analysis is, in its own terms, shrewd and intelligent--political
leaders really do get blamed for backing losers, and it is undeniably more
plausible to spread blame if one's adversaries are seen to share power--it badly
misses the mood and feel of the Bush presidency.
Regardless
of agreement or disagreement with the objectives of George W. Bush, it should be
obvious by now that this is the first strong presidency since the 1980s. The
Reagan era was two decades ago, so maybe some of us have forgotten what strong
presidencies are like. Maybe some of us didn't even recognize how strong a
president Ronald Reagan was at the time. He did have a habit of doing unexpected
things that seemed crude and naive, like firing every air traffic controller in
the country in his first months in office because he didn't think they should go
on strike. Only much later--when we had forgotten the enormous risks Reagan
took, and the fears and doubts they generated had lifted--were such acts written
up as strength.
So
here are a few modest rules of thumb for understanding strong presidents:
(1)
Strong presidents seek political power to accomplish specific goals, not to make
themselves look good or even to acquire power, or the perception of power, as an
end in itself. Strong presidents have nothing against being reelected, but the
thought of abdicating a share of power for two precious years to Tom Daschle (in
Reagan's day, the roughly equivalent figures were Tip O'Neill and Robert Byrd),
on the grounds that such abdication might enhance one's electability, would make
a strong president physically ill.
(2)
Because strong presidents think in terms of specific goals, they devote a lot of
their time to building political support for their goals. Sometimes this takes
the form of wooing legislators, including legislators of another political party
or ideological persuasion. When polarization and partisanship make such wooing
hard if not impossible, that same ambition is likely to take the form of aiding
the election of candidates who can be counted on to support one's goals. The
differing political climates of Austin 1995 and Washington 2001 fully account
for the seeming contradiction between the legendary bipartisanship of Governor
Bush and the fierce, relentless, highly effective partisanship we witnessed in
the President Bush of the 2002 off-year election cycle.
(3)
While strong presidents are hardly oblivious to calculations of risk and lost
prestige, their orientation toward specific goals makes them far more interested
in building loyalty. Undoubtedly there were strong arguments against the
president's multiple appearances for candidates thought very likely to lose. But
the other side of the coin is this: Try to picture a future time or situation
when the president will be refused the help of Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado.
(4)
Strong presidencies are not generated by the nature of the times they live in or
the problems they deal with. William McKinley was a strong president who
bequeathed an enhanced foreign and domestic hand to his successor, Theodore
Roosevelt. But because Roosevelt was from his first moment in office a strong
president, he took that strong hand and found ways to make it even stronger. As
for George W. Bush, the vital signs of a strong presidency were evident well
before 9/11, when against all the expectations of his 50-50 election, he
demanded from Congress and largely got a sizable tax cut as his first order of
business rather than the watered-down version everyone assumed he would settle
for.
(5)
Strong presidents tend to be selective in their agenda at any given point of
their presidency. They greatly value focus. They are hard to divert from any
issue or task they have decided is their center of gravity, as has so obviously
been the case with Bush in regard to the war on terrorism in the last 14 months.
In Isaiah Berlin's typology, a strong president is far more likely to be a
hedgehog than a fox (the infinitely knowledgeable and voluble Bill Clinton is
the epitome of a fox).
(6)
The critics and political opponents of strong presidents often mistake their
hedgehog-like methods and focus for a kind of tunnel vision. In the past year,
for example, it might have been plausible for Tom Daschle to assume that,
because the majority leader and most Democrats avoided obstructionist tactics on
anything directly relating to the war, he could pretty well have his way, or at
least exert an absolute veto, on almost everything else. Bush did little,
directly, to disabuse him of this assumption, other than quietly lay the
groundwork for the most elaborate, most comprehensive, and most partisan
intervention by a president in an off-year election in American history.
Strong
presidents tend not to get visibly mad, and are even willing to look weak and
ineffectual for extended periods of preparation. But in cases where they feel
their power to achieve their goals is in danger of being called into question,
they do have their ways of altering the playing field. It's a lesson Minority
Leader Daschle will not soon forget.
©
Copyright 2002, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.