The Limits of Presidential Power

Writing in the FT yesterday Martin Wolf observed:

It is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.

Commenter IanC agrees with Wolf, as does Porkbelly who writes:

Obama could easily have used his electoral mandate to impose his will upon the House Democrats when the bill was crafted; instead he let them cobble together a malodorous mess of every left-liberal pet project and constituency gimme.

Now there’s something to this. The bill is indeed larded with goodies the Democrats have long-desired. And it may well, as I say, have adverse long-term consequences while also failing to solve short-term problems. But, as faithful commenter NDM also correctly points out, it is not in fact the President’s job to dictate legislation to Congress. And, generally speaking, that’s a good thing. Any hope that Obama might roll-back the Imperial Presidency is probably doomed, but it’s still worth bearing in mind that, domestically at least, the American president has far fewer powers than his French counterpart or, for the matter, the British Prime Minister.

One of the greatest faults of the Bush years was that when the White House snapped its fingers congressional Republicans came running and did what they were told (not always, to be sure, but more often than not nonetheless),. Doubtless there will be times when Obama seeks to dominate Congress but, in general and certainly constitutionally, it would be a good thing if he didn’t. That is not, after all, his job. And, yes, I know that Presidential restraint is not in keeping with the temper of the times and there’s no hope of a modern-day Coolidge. But still…

UPDATE: Mind you, it’s also possible that Obama isn’t “inposing” his view on Congress because, having spent time working with Democrats, he’s pretty much ok with the bill that has emerged. He is, after all, a Democrat.