Here’s How Obama Can Go It Alone

The biggest problems can’t be solved with simple, unilateral solutions. But that doesn’t mean he’s powerless.

Precedent: In its final days, the Clinton administration protected Mendocino National Forest. 
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ronald Brownstein
Jan. 30, 2014, 4 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama is right that through his re­main­ing months he can leave his deep­est im­print primar­ily through uni­lat­er­al ac­tions that don’t re­quire con­gres­sion­al co­oper­a­tion. But they aren’t the ac­tions he high­lighted the most in this week’s State of the Uni­on.

In the speech, Obama offered a co­her­ent vis­ion of the pres­id­ent as cata­lyst and cheer­lead­er. He cor­rectly ar­gued that while the coun­try is stale­mated in Wash­ing­ton, busi­nesses, loc­al gov­ern­ments, and non­profit or­gan­iz­a­tions still show enorm­ous vi­tal­ity in con­front­ing big prob­lems ran­ging from edu­ca­tion to stag­nant in­comes. With vig­or, he pledged to mo­bil­ize the in­nov­at­ors already driv­ing that change. Con­gress, he in­sisted, could join him — or stand aside and mar­gin­al­ize it­self.

The mis­sion Obama defined of crys­tal­liz­ing bot­tom-up in­nov­a­tion is a worth­while, even cre­at­ive, use of pres­id­en­tial au­thor­ity. But for all its vir­tues, this ap­proach con­tains a huge hole: Bold fed­er­al ac­tion is still the pres­id­ent’s most im­port­ant lever to ac­cel­er­ate grass­roots change. It’s as if Obama sought to ex­pand health care cov­er­age by con­ven­ing a White House con­fer­ence of small em­ploy­ers who are already in­sur­ing their work­ers and provid­ing a fa­vor­able in­ter­pret­a­tion of tax law to nudge oth­ers. He covered in­cal­cul­ably more people by passing through Con­gress the health re­form law that had eluded his pre­de­cessors.

And for all the with-or-without-you brio, Obama has few chances to reach such sig­ni­fic­ant le­gis­lat­ive agree­ments with con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans. On im­mig­ra­tion, the House GOP this week cracked open the door to leg­al status for the 11 mil­lion im­mig­rants here without doc­u­ments — but the road to agree­ment re­mains long. Wil­li­am Gal­ston, a vet­er­an Demo­crat­ic thinker, also sees op­por­tun­it­ies in tax re­form that might sim­ul­tan­eously fund in­fra­struc­ture spend­ing. But many oth­er ob­serv­ers would be sur­prised if Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress, be­liev­ing that the botched Obama­care rol­lout has provided them the 2014 edge, throw Obama the life­line of any big le­gis­lat­ive ac­com­plish­ments.

That pro­spect un­der­stand­ably tilts the pres­id­ent back to­ward uni­lat­er­al ac­tion. But pro­mul­gat­ing more ex­ec­ut­ive or­ders, or con­ven­ing in­nov­at­ors, isn’t the most in­flu­en­tial form of such ac­tion avail­able to him. Obama could make a deep­er mark by ef­fect­ively ex­ecut­ing two ma­jor ini­ti­at­ives he’s already launched: health re­form and reg­u­la­tion of the car­bon emis­sions linked to cli­mate change. Apart from im­mig­ra­tion, no oth­er do­mest­ic pri­or­ity plaus­ibly with­in Obama’s reach will af­fect Amer­ica’s fu­ture — or his leg­acy — as much as wheth­er he can fin­ish what he’s star­ted on those fronts.

The prob­lem is that im­ple­ment­a­tion of big ini­ti­at­ives hasn’t been ex­actly a strong suit for Obama, only the third sit­ting sen­at­or ever elec­ted pres­id­ent. “He has the poli­cy­mak­ing in­stincts of a sen­at­or more than the ad­min­is­trat­ive in­stincts of an ex­ec­ut­ive,” says Don­ald F. Kettl, dean of the Uni­versity of Mary­land pub­lic-policy school.

Ex­hib­it A in Kettl’s case is the dis­astrous rol­lout of the health care web­site, which reen­er­gized GOP op­pos­i­tion to the over­all plan. No oth­er policy achieve­ment through Obama’s re­main­ing time could rival en­trench­ing Obama­care to the point where even a Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent and Con­gress in 2017 could not real­ist­ic­ally re­peal it. But that would re­quire a per­sist­ent at­ten­tion to ad­min­is­trat­ive de­tail that ex­pands cov­er­age in a demo­graph­ic­ally bal­anced way and builds pub­lic sup­port, par­tic­u­larly in the med­ic­al com­munity. “He has the po­ten­tial for a mo­nu­ment­al leg­acy in Obama­care,” Kettl says. “But if he fumbles the ad­min­is­tra­tion, he “¦ provides un­end­ing op­por­tun­it­ies for Re­pub­lic­ans, both to at­tack the pro­gram and un­der­mine his party.”

On en­ergy, Obama’s fate re­mains as much in his hands. Com­plet­ing the two reg­u­la­tions the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency is writ­ing to lim­it car­bon emis­sions from new and ex­ist­ing power plants would change how Amer­ica uses en­ergy more than any­thing else the pres­id­ent might do. Once com­pleted, those rules would im­pel a his­tor­ic shift away from coal for gen­er­at­ing elec­tri­city to­ward lower-car­bon op­tions such as nat­ur­al gas and re­new­ables.

Here, Obama’s chal­lenge is en­sur­ing that these com­plex rules are fi­nal­ized, in a leg­ally de­fend­able form, be­fore he leaves of­fice. He’s dir­ec­ted EPA to fin­ish both rules by June 2015, an am­bi­tious pace. If that sched­ule slips past his term, it be­comes much easi­er for a Re­pub­lic­an suc­cessor to re­verse course (as George W. Bush did with Bill Clin­ton’s un­fin­ished pro­pos­al to reg­u­late mer­cury pol­lu­tion). But “if the fi­nal guidelines have been pro­mul­gated, it makes it much tough­er to modi­fy [be­cause] there would have to be a form­al rule­mak­ing to change the rule,” notes en­vir­on­ment­al con­sult­ant Dina Kruger, former dir­ect­or of EPA’s cli­mate of­fice.

One per­son who well un­der­stands this dy­nam­ic is John Podesta, Obama’s new seni­or ad­viser. One of Podesta’s proudest achieve­ments as Pres­id­ent Clin­ton’s last chief of staff was com­plet­ing reg­u­la­tions pro­tect­ing nearly 60 mil­lion acres of na­tion­al forests from de­vel­op­ment. Those reg­u­la­tions wer­en’t fin­ished un­til eight days be­fore Clin­ton left of­fice. But when the suc­ceed­ing Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion tried re­peatedly to re­verse them, it was blocked by the courts and skep­tic­al gov­ernors, and the rules re­main in force today. New pro­pos­als and sweep­ing vis­ions wouldn’t se­cure Obama’s leg­acy nearly as much as en­sur­ing that he leaves his car­bon reg­u­la­tions and health care re­form in equally de­fens­ible po­s­i­tions.

What We're Following See More »
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."


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.