How Obama Became the Superhero of Excuses

Meant to mock president’s critics, the ‘Green Lantern’ theory underscores the gap between his promise and his performance.

In this photo taken by a government photographer for Halloween 2012, President Obama pretends to be caught in Spider-Man's web as he greets Nicholas Tamarin, 3.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
May 21, 2014, 9:06 a.m.

You helped elect an un­tested pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, a man al­most as lib­er­al as you. He prom­ised to heal the oceans, make health care an in­ali­en­able right, and trans­form Wash­ing­ton’s tox­ic cul­ture. You mocked Re­pub­lic­ans, in­de­pend­ents, and squishy Demo­crats who had the au­da­city to cri­ti­cize your guy, much less doubt the in­ev­it­ab­il­ity of his vic­tory. Pres­id­ent Obama won — twice — and then didn’t live up to any­body’s ex­pect­a­tions, in­clud­ing his own.

What do you do? Well, if you’re Ezra Klein and a co­ter­ie of in­flex­ibly pro­gress­ive pun­dits, you re­pur­pose an at­tack used against Pres­id­ent George W. Bush’s bom­bast­ic ap­proach to geo­pol­it­ics. You call any­body who ques­tions Obama’s lead­er­ship style a Green Lan­tern­ist. In a post for Vox stretch­ing bey­ond 2,500 words, Klein makes his case against Obama crit­ics.

“Pres­id­ents con­sist­ently over­prom­ise and un­der­deliv­er,” he be­gins, a fair start. Surely, the ed­it­or-in-chief of Vox is go­ing to make the ob­vi­ous point that pres­id­ents and pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates should know enough about the polit­ic­al pro­cess (in­clud­ing the lim­its on the ex­ec­ut­ive branch) to avoid such a breach of trust.

Klein is a data guy. He must know that the pub­lic’s faith in gov­ern­ment and polit­ics is on a dec­ades-long slide, a dan­ger­ous trend due in no small part to the fact that can­did­ates make prom­ises they know they can’t keep. In Wash­ing­ton, we call it pan­der­ing. In the rest of the coun­try, it’s called a lie. Klein yawns.

What they need to say to get elec­ted far out­paces what they can ac­tu­ally do in of­fice. Pres­id­ent Obama is a per­fect ex­ample. His 2008 cam­paign didn’t just prom­ise health care re­form, a stim­u­lus bill, and fin­an­cial reg­u­la­tion. It also prom­ised a cap-and-trade bill to lim­it car­bon emis­sions, com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion re­form, gun con­trol, and much more. His pres­id­ency, he said, would be change Amer­ic­an could be­lieve in. But it’s clear now that much of the change he prom­ised isn’t go­ing to hap­pen — in large part be­cause he doesn’t have the power to make it hap­pen.


Now, wait. A Har­vard-trained law­yer and con­sti­tu­tion­al schol­ar like Obama didn’t stumble in­to the 2008 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign un­aware of the bal­ance of powers, the po­lar­iz­a­tion of polit­ics, the right­ward march of the GOP, and oth­er struc­tur­al lim­its on the pres­id­ency. He made those prom­ises be­cause he thought those goals were neither un­reas­on­able nor un­at­tain­able. Either that, or he was ly­ing.

No­tice that the broken prom­ises are pawned off to non­hu­man forms (“his 2008 cam­paign” pledged … “It also prom­ised … “) rather than Obama him­self. The verbal gym­nastics are an early hint that the main pur­pose of the es­say is to shel­ter Obama from blame. There’s so much more.

You would think voters in gen­er­al and pro­fes­sion­al me­dia pun­dits in par­tic­u­lar would, by now, be wise to this pat­tern. But they’re not.

Ac­tu­ally, we may not be as smart as Klein but we’re wise to this pat­tern of broken prom­ises. We get it. We just don’t ac­cept it. Why does Klein? Why do so many oth­er pro­gress­ives and Obama apo­lo­gists settle for so little?

Each dis­ap­point­ment wounds anew. Each un­checked item on the To Do list is a sur­prise. Be­lief in the pres­id­ency seems to be en­tirely ro­bust to the in­ab­il­ity of any par­tic­u­lar pres­id­ent to make good on their prom­ises. And so the cri­ti­cism is al­ways the same: Why can’t the pres­id­ent be more like the Green Lan­tern?

There it is, the straw man. Rather than con­duct the im­port­ant de­bate about the bal­ance of powers and the struc­ture of gov­ern­ment in the 21st cen­tury, some lib­er­als prefer to dis­tort views that don’t af­firm their own. Nobody ex­pects the pres­id­ent to be a su­per­hero. Most of us would settle for one who is ef­fect­ive, en­gaged, em­path­et­ic, and trans­par­ent about how he or she con­ducts the people’s busi­ness. Simple, not su­per.

Ac­cord­ing to Brendan Nyhan, the Dart­mouth polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist who coined the term, the Green Lan­tern The­ory of the Pres­id­ency is “the be­lief that the pres­id­ent can achieve any polit­ic­al or policy ob­ject­ive if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tac­tics.” In oth­er words, the Amer­ic­an pres­id­ent is func­tion­ally all-power­ful, and whenev­er he can’t get something done, it’s be­cause he’s not try­ing hard enough, or not try­ing smart enough.

Nyhan fur­ther sep­ar­ates it in­to two vari­ants: “the Re­agan ver­sion of the Green Lan­tern The­ory and the LBJ ver­sion of the Green Lan­tern The­ory.” The Re­agan ver­sion, he says, holds that “if you only com­mu­nic­ate well enough the pub­lic will rally to your side.” The LBJ ver­sion says that “if the pres­id­ent only tried harder to win over Con­gress they would vote through his le­gis­lat­ive agenda.” In both cases, Nyhan ar­gues, “we’ve been sold a false bill of goods.”

That is a good sum­mary of a the­ory that, in fair­ness, raises im­port­ant is­sues about the pub­lic’s un­der­stand­ing of the pres­id­ency. Journ­al­ists should re­mind read­ers that Con­gress is the first branch of gov­ern­ment, and the Su­preme Court is an­oth­er check on the ex­ec­ut­ive branch. No fair-minded per­son would ab­solve the Re­pub­lic­an House of blame for Wash­ing­ton’s dys­func­tion.

The Amer­ic­an pub­lic is not stu­pid, at least not as dumb as Klein, Nyhan, and oth­er Green Lan­tern ac­cusers must think. Voters know the pres­id­ent isn’t “all-power­ful.” They don’t think he wears a cape be­neath his suit. They cer­tainly know, per­haps bet­ter than any of us in Wash­ing­ton, that good things don’t al­ways come to those who work hard.

The Green Lan­tern Corps is a fic­tion­al, in­ter­galactic peace­keep­ing en­tity that ex­ists in DC Com­ics. Mem­bers of the Corps get a power ring that’s cap­able of cre­at­ing green en­ergy pro­jec­tions of al­most un­lim­ited power. The only con­straint is the will­power and ima­gin­a­tion of the ring’s wear­er ….

I can’t tell wheth­er this is a nerdy riff meant to en­ter­tain his like-minded read­ers or a sar­cast­ic rant in­ten­ded to in­sult the rest of us. Maybe it’s both. Did I men­tion that Klein is a smart dude?

The Found­ing Fath­ers were re­belling against an out-of-con­trol mon­arch. So they con­struc­ted a polit­ic­al sys­tem with a power­ful le­gis­lature and a re­l­at­ively weak ex­ec­ut­ive. The res­ult is that the U.S.  pres­id­ent has little form­al power to make Con­gress do any­thing. He can’t force Con­gress to vote on a bill. He can’t force Con­gress to pass a bill. And even if he ve­toes a bill Con­gress can simply over­turn his veto. So in dir­ect con­front­a­tions with Con­gress — and that de­scribes much of Amer­ic­an polit­ics these days — the pres­id­ent has few op­tions.

If you paid at­ten­tion in high school civics class, you can skip this part. Same, too, for the long stretches on Lyn­don John­son, Ron­ald Re­agan, and a no-duh study about how when a pres­id­ent takes a po­s­i­tion on an is­sue the op­pos­ing party be­comes far more likely to take the op­pos­ite po­s­i­tion. No col­lege term pa­per is com­plete without his­tor­ic­al filler and a study doc­u­ment­ing the ob­vi­ous 

But please don’t miss the part where Klein quotes New York Times colum­nist Maur­een Dowd and me cri­ti­ciz­ing Obama’s lead­er­ship style and skills.

This kind of thing both lets Con­gress off the hook and con­fuses Amer­ic­ans about where the power ac­tu­ally lies in Amer­ic­an polit­ics — and thus about who to hold ac­count­able.

Again, it’s only in Klein’s ima­gin­a­tion that any­body be­lieves in “this kind of thing” — that a pres­id­ent has su­per­powers or de­serves sin­gu­lar blame. Oddly, while our ig­nor­ance is cent­ral to his at­tack, Klein con­cedes that we un­der­stand that a con­sti­tu­tion­al bal­ance of powers lim­its the pres­id­ency: “Green Lan­tern the­or­ists don’t deny any of this.”

The in­con­veni­ent truth is that Klein’s kind of think­ing lets the pres­id­ent off the hook, un­ac­count­able for prom­ises broken and op­por­tun­it­ies lost. Rather than change Wash­ing­ton’s cul­ture of po­lar­iz­a­tion, zero-sum game polit­ics, and spin, Obama sur­rendered to it al­most im­me­di­ately. On health in­sur­ance re­form, gov­ern­ment debt, and loosen­ing im­mig­ra­tion laws, Obama shares blame with ob­stin­ate House Re­pub­lic­ans for fum­bling po­ten­tial com­prom­ise. On cli­mate change and gun con­trol, Obama knew (or should have known) his rhet­or­ic was set­ting up voters for dis­ap­point­ment. Rather than roll back Bush-era ter­ror­ism pro­grams that curb civil liber­ties, Obama deepened them.

The launch of the Af­ford­able Care Act and the worsen­ing of con­di­tions at the Vet­er­ans Af­fairs De­part­ment are em­blem­at­ic of Obama’s in­at­ten­tion to the hard work of gov­ern­ing. He is slow to fire poor-serving Cab­in­et mem­bers and quick to dis­miss con­tro­ver­sies as “phony scan­dals.” To the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, trans­par­ency is a mere talk­ing point. The great irony of his pro­gress­ive pres­id­ency: Demo­crats privately ad­mit that Obama has done as much to un­der­mine the pub­lic’s faith in gov­ern­ment as his GOP pre­de­cessor. The Green Lan­tern The­ory is an ex­cuse for fail­ure.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4961) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
27TH AMENDMENT
Congress Can’t Seem Not to Pay Itself
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Far Away from Cleveland is the California GOP Staying?
5 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."

ATTORNEY MAY RELEASE THEM ANYWAY
SCOTUS Will Not Allow ‘DC Madam’ Phone Records to Be Released
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."

Source:
×