The Most Enduring Myth About the Presidency

The Green Lantern theory just won’t go away.

A man marches in the Dragoncon parade dressed as the character 'Green Lantern', on September 3, 2011, in Atlanta, Georgia. Dragoncon is a multimedia convention held annually over Labor Day weekend that draws tens of thousands of comic book, fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music film and science-fiction fans. AFP PHOTO/JOHN AMIS (Photo credit should read John Amis/AFP/Getty Images)
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Norm Ornstein
April 22, 2014, 4:18 p.m.

The LBJ Lib­rary re­cently held a mul­ti­day pro­gram to com­mem­or­ate the 50th an­niversary of the Civil Rights Act, and by all ac­counts, the pro­gram was stir­ring and stim­u­lat­ing, up to and in­clud­ing Pres­id­ent Obama’s speech.

But there was one down­side: the re­act­iv­a­tion of one of the most en­dur­ing memes and myths about the pres­id­ency, and es­pe­cially the Obama pres­id­ency. Like Rasputin (or Whac-A-Mole,) it keeps com­ing back even after it has been bludgeoned and ob­lit­er­ated by facts and lo­gic. I feel com­pelled to whack this mole once more.

The meme is what Mat­thew Yglesi­as, writ­ing in 2006, re­ferred to as “the Green Lan­tern The­ory of Geo­pol­it­ics,” and has been re­fined by Greg Sar­gent and Brendan Nyhan in­to the Green Lan­tern The­ory of the pres­id­ency. In a nut­shell, it at­trib­utes hero­ic powers to a pres­id­ent — if only he would use them. And the hold­ers of this the­ory have turned it in­to the meme that if only Obama used his power of per­sua­sion, he could have the kind of suc­cess that LBJ en­joyed with the Great So­ci­ety, that Bill Clin­ton en­joyed in his al­li­ance with Newt Gin­grich that gave us wel­fare re­form and fisc­al suc­cess, that Ron­ald Re­agan had with Dan Ros­ten­kowski and Bill Brad­ley to get tax re­form, and so on.

If only Obama had dealt with Con­gress the way LBJ did — per­suad­ing, ca­jol­ing, threat­en­ing, and sweet-talk­ing mem­bers to at­tain his goals — his pres­id­ency would not be on the ropes and he would be a hero. If only Obama would schmooze with law­makers the way Bill Clin­ton did, he would have much great­er suc­cess. If only Obama would work with Re­pub­lic­ans and not try to steam­roll them, he could be a hero and have a fisc­al deal that would solve the long-term debt prob­lem.

If only the pro­ponents of this the­ory would step back and look at the real­it­ies of all these pres­id­en­cies (or would read or re­read the Richard Neustadt clas­sic, Pres­id­en­tial Power.)

I do un­der­stand the sen­ti­ment here and the frus­tra­tion over the deep dys­func­tion that has taken over our polit­ics. It is tempt­ing to be­lieve that a pres­id­ent could over­come the tri­bal­ism, po­lar­iz­a­tion, and chal­lenges of the per­man­ent cam­paign, by do­ing what oth­er pres­id­ents did to over­come their chal­lenges. It is not as if passing le­gis­la­tion and mak­ing policy was easy in the old days.

But here is the real­ity, start­ing with the John­son pres­id­ency. I do not want to den­ig­rate LBJ or down­play his re­mark­able ac­com­plish­ments and the cour­age he dis­played in tak­ing on his own base, South­ern Demo­crats, to en­act land­mark civil-rights and vot­ing-rights laws that have done more to trans­form Amer­ica in a pos­it­ive way than al­most any­thing else in our life­times. And it is a fact that the 89th Con­gress, that of the Great So­ci­ety, can make the case for hav­ing more sweep­ing ac­com­plish­ments, from vot­ing rights to Medi­care to ele­ment­ary and sec­ond­ary edu­ca­tion re­form, than any oth­er.

LBJ had a lot to do with the agenda, and the ac­com­plish­ments. But his drive for civil rights was aided in 1964 by hav­ing the mo­mentum fol­low­ing John F. Kennedy’s as­sas­sin­a­tion, and the part­ner­ship of Re­pub­lic­ans Ever­ett Dirk­sen and Bill Mc­Cul­lough, de­tailed beau­ti­fully in new books by Clay Ris­en and Todd Purdum. And John­son was aided sub­stan­tially in 1965-66 by hav­ing swollen ma­jor­it­ies of his own party in both cham­bers of Con­gress — 68 of 100 sen­at­ors, and 295 House mem­bers, more than 2-to-1 mar­gins. While John­son needed, and got, sub­stan­tial Re­pub­lic­an sup­port on civil rights and vot­ing rights to over­come South­ern Demo­crats’ op­pos­i­tion, he did not get a lot of Re­pub­lic­ans sup­port­ing the rest of his do­mest­ic agenda. He had enough Demo­crats sup­port­ing those policies to en­sure pas­sage, and he got enough GOP votes on fi­nal pas­sage of key bills to en­sure the le­git­im­acy of the ac­tions.

John­son de­serves cred­it for horse-trad­ing (for ex­ample, find­ing con­ces­sions to give to Demo­crat Wil­bur Mills, chair­man of the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, to get his sup­port for Medi­care), but it was the num­bers that made the dif­fer­ence. Con­sider what happened in the next two years, after the 1966 midterm elec­tions de­pleted Demo­crat­ic ranks and en­larged Re­pub­lic­an ones. LBJ was still the great mas­ter of Con­gress — but without the votes, the re­cord was any­thing but ro­bust. All the ca­jol­ing and per­suad­ing and horse-trad­ing in the world did not mat­ter.

Now briefly con­sider oth­er pres­id­ents. Ron­ald Re­agan was a mas­ter ne­go­ti­at­or, and he has the dis­tinc­tion of hav­ing two ma­jor pieces of le­gis­la­tion, tax re­form and im­mig­ra­tion re­form, en­acted in his second term, without the over­whelm­ing num­bers that John­son en­joyed in 1965-66. What Re­agan did have, just like John­son had on civil rights, was act­ive and eager part­ners from the oth­er party. The drive for tax re­form did not start with Re­agan, but with Demo­crats Bill Brad­ley and Dick Geph­ardt, whose re­form bill be­came the tem­plate for the law that ul­ti­mately passed. They, and Ways and Means Chair­man Dan Ros­ten­kowski, were de­lighted to make their mark in his­tory (and for Brad­ley and Geph­ardt, to ad­vance their pres­id­en­tial am­bi­tions) by work­ing with the lame-duck Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent. The same de­sire to craft trans­form­at­ive policy was there for both Alan Simpson and Ron Mazzoli, a Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­an and a House Demo­crat, who put to­geth­er im­mig­ra­tion le­gis­la­tion with lim­ited in­volve­ment by the White House.

As for Bill Clin­ton, he was as polit­ic­ally ad­ept as any pres­id­ent in mod­ern times, and as cha­ris­mat­ic and com­pel­ling as any­one. But the real­ity is that these great tal­ents did not con­vince a single Re­pub­lic­an to sup­port his eco­nom­ic plan in 1993, nor enough Demo­crats to pass the plan for a cru­cial sev­en-plus months; did not stop the Re­pub­lic­ans un­der Speak­er Newt Gin­grich from shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment twice; and did not stop the House to­ward the end of his pres­id­ency from im­peach­ing him on shaky grounds, with no chance of con­vic­tion in the Sen­ate. The brief win­dows of close co­oper­a­tion in 1996, after Gin­grich’s hu­mi­li­ation fol­low­ing the second shut­down, were opened for prag­mat­ic, tac­tic­al reas­ons by Re­pub­lic­ans eager to win a second con­sec­ut­ive term in the ma­jor­ity, and ended shortly after they had ac­com­plished that goal.

When Obama had the num­bers, not as ro­bust as LBJ’s but ro­bust enough, he had a ter­rif­ic re­cord of le­gis­lat­ive ac­com­plish­ments. The 111th Con­gress ranks just be­low the 89th in terms of sig­ni­fic­ant and far-reach­ing en­act­ments, from the com­pon­ents of the eco­nom­ic stim­u­lus plan to the health care bill to Dodd/Frank and cred­it-card re­form. But all were done with either no or min­im­al Re­pub­lic­an sup­port. LBJ and Re­agan had will­ing part­ners from the op­pos­ite party; Obama has had none. Noth­ing that he could have done would have changed the clear, de­lib­er­ate policy of Re­pub­lic­ans unit­ing to op­pose and ob­struct his agenda, that altered long-stand­ing Sen­ate norms to use the fili­buster in ways it had nev­er been em­ployed be­fore, in­clud­ing in the LBJ, Re­agan, and Clin­ton eras, that drew sharp lines of total op­pos­i­tion on policies like health re­form and rais­ing taxes as part of a broad budget deal.

Could Obama have done more to bond with law­makers? Sure, es­pe­cially with mem­bers of his own party, which would help more now, when he is in the throes of second-term blues, than it would have when he achieved re­mark­able party unity in his first two years. But the bru­tal real­ity, in today’s polit­ics, is that LBJ, if he were here now, could not be the LBJ of the Great So­ci­ety years in this en­vir­on­ment. Nobody can, and to de­mand oth­er­wise is both fu­tile and fool­ish.

What We're Following See More »
Sessions Encourages Prosecutors To Seek Death Penalty For Drug Cases
22 minutes ago

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is encouraging all U.S. attorneys to pursue the death penalty in certain drug cases. 'I strongly encourage federal prosecutors to use these statutes, when appropriate, to aid in our continuing fight against drug trafficking and the destruction it causes in our nation,'" Sessions wrote in a Tuesday DOJ memo. "We cannot continue with business as usual." President Trump first proposed the step in New Hampshire speech on Monday. "If we don't get tough on the drug dealers, we're wasting our time," he said. "That toughness includes the death penalty."

Ryan Invites Macron to Deliver Joint Speech
2 hours ago
Austin Package Bomber Killed
3 hours ago
Rep. Lipinski Wins
3 hours ago
Senate To Lift Immunity for Internet Firms in Sex-Trafficking Cases
3 hours ago

The Senate is expected to give final approval Wednesday to a bill limiting federal immunity for internet platforms involved in sex trafficking. "The immunity law was adopted in the 1990s as a way to nurture the internet, which was then at a fledgling stage. Trafficking lawsuits against online businesses—notably, a classified-ad site—have usually been tossed out of court because of the immunity law." Opponents of the legislation argue it could be used to squelch free speech by making companies liable for user-generated content.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.