Presidential Decision-Making, Part III

And just a bit more, then I really will (eat dinner) then study some French.

Ryan Lizza on the hapless Tim Geithner:

At the beginning of this year, Timothy Geithner seemed like the Administration official most likely to soon be spending more time with his family… Geithner’s nomination as Treasury Secretary was marred by revelations that he hadn’t paid various personal taxes. Then, on February 10th, two weeks after he was confirmed by the Senate—where thirty-four members voted against him, more than against any other Obama Cabinet nominee—he gave a highly anticipated speech laying out the Treasury Department’s plan to nurse back to health the still fragile banking industry. It was immediately panned, and the following day the Dow dropped three hundred and eighty-two points… “Geithner, that poor son of a bitch,” Axelrod told me. “He was going to be the first human sacrifice of our Administration as far as Washington was concerned.”

Presidential Decision-Making

Read a good, albeit six months old, article in The New Yorker about Obama’s economic team. Like what it showed about decision-making and discussion within the team–no groupthink here!

We talked about presidential decision-making only briefly during my Presidential Politics class, I particularly recall reading an analysis about the Bush administration in which the author talked about the penchant for groupthink. Obviously, there is no way for a president to be an expert on everything, hence the reliance on advisers. Between reading to kids in elementary schools, posing for the press corps, traveling to Podunk, USA, the president has only a limited amount of time. Hence information-filters, like the Chief of Staff or Cabinet heads. As GMU political scientist James Pfiffner writes of Bush:

In the George W. Bush administration, however, advice to the president was dominated by Vice President Cheney, and he was effectively able to manage the policy process to ensure that his preferences prevailed. In making many important decisions, the administration lacked an orderly policy-making process and the benefit of an honest broker. In Bush’s case such a process would have helped because, in Scott McClellan’s words, “He is not one to delve deeply into all the possible policy options…before making a choice. Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq.”

Gut reactions. That’s really scary. I make gut reaction decisions about whether or not I want to go to class, about whether I want to have a baguette de tradition or a baguette parisienne, not about whether or not to start a war halfway across the world.

During meetings with the president, what happens to dissenters establishes an important precedent. If dissent is seen as positive and is encouraged, then the president will, one hopes, receive information from different angles that will contribute to him making a final decision. If dissenters are treated as outsiders, or have their access to the president restricted, then the president will end up hearing only those opinions he favors. I read somewhere that that is precisely what happened to Colin Powell during the Iraq War decision. In the end, it all comes back to the president. He determines who gets access, he puts in place an informal structure of deliberation, and finally, he makes the decision.

Why is this important? To me, it’s crucial because this is precisely why I hold the current president in such high regard. I’m less an ideological Democrat than, as a previous post stated, an Obama Democrat. [Update: come to think of it, I’m also pretty solidly Democrat in terms of political views. If Obama had a Republican twin, I couldn’t see myself supporting said twin.] My support for Obama over Clinton can be summed up easily: decision-making potential. I trust that he’ll make rational decisions that will benefit the US based on careful deliberation, that he’ll listen to all sides of an argument, and that he’ll thoroughly consider the consequences of said decisions. I was inordinately pleased that by his Cabinet picks. I could go on about it, but I also need to study French and to look through my old presidential politics readings. For now, I give you The New Yorker:

Amused.

And as always, to delight us all, the Vice President of the United States:

Approved.

From http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4458527284_21d7409410.jpg

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI.

I need to double-check this, but Paul Ryan the guy Obama joked about, beautiful family, don’t want to hurt you man, Paul Ryan?

From Ezra Klein:

This is my 12th year. If I lose my job over this, then so be it. In that case, I can be doing more productive things. If you’re given the opportunity to serve, you better serve like it’s your last term every term. It’s just the way I look at it. I sleep well at night.

I don’t know if he’s just saying what sounds good, or whether he’s legitimately willing to work with the Dems on health care. Both sides agree that something needs to be done. One hopes that something gets done.

[Update] Indeed, beautiful family Paul Ryan. Loved the exchange:

At another point, pushing for “a tone of civility instead of slash-and-burn,” the president said the media doesn’t report on the positive. “I don’t a lot of credit if I say, ‘You know, I think Paul Ryan’s a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family.’ Nobody’s going to run that in the newspapers, right?”

The crowd laughed.

“And by the way, in case he’s going to get a Republican challenge, I didn’t mean it,” the president joked. Turning to Ryan, he said, “I don’t want to — don’t want to hurt you, man.

So much better on tape. Scroll to 1:10:35. Or better yet, watch the whole thing.

Well worth watching.

Seeing this made me pretty giddy. I’m a total nerd. But as a friend pointed out, what does it say about the current state of American politics that I should feel ridiculously excited to see substantive debate happening? In fact, it isn’t even that substantive, it’s not the Prime Minister’s Questions. Why, instead of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, am I not hearing Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Peter Roskam (D-IL) every evening?? Why do Americans need their opinions shaped by TV personalities rather than given the chance to form their own opinions? What a shame that it has come to this.

I watched the discussion and felt so hopeful. I really do hope that the Dems and Reps can come to sane agreements. God I wish that the tone of politics could change.

But after watching the Q&A, I read comments on the Youtube site and on TNC’s blog, watched FOX and MSNBC commentary, and felt disheartened again. Even if they understood the point, they pretended as if they didn’t. The Democrats gloat at how Obama schooled the Republicans, how “Obama Goes to the Lion’s Den–And Mauls The Lion”; I don’t know much about the Republican side, but I hear that their commentators are claiming victory after having ‘forced’ Obama to admit to mistakes. Why don’t they get it?? Why do they continue this stupid, superficial, dumbing-down style of turning everything into a win-lose conflict?? I mean I know why the TV people do it, it’s how they get ratings up, but it is still so damned frustrating.

Quick SOTU thoughts.

State of the Union:

Initial response, loved the speech. People talk about how he’s all about rhetoric and lofty phrases. The Inaugural Address* last year, for instance, and the speech about race.

But no, yesterday’s State of the Union showed that Obama can make his point equally well without just floating lofty rhetoric. He addressed both those sitting in the audience and those watching on TV/online. He showed that he won’t give up simply because there’s some opposition.

On not quitting:

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us.We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment – to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

One thing that especially appeals to me about this president is that his ideas and rhetoric are founded on a solid awareness of his role as president, and an awareness of the current state of politics including that compromises must, at times, be made. Sometimes it sounds as if he’s stating the obvious, but in today’s politics, the obvious is often forgotten or deliberately ignored.

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

And earlier in the speech:

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another.

I like the realistic, rational view of politics that he takes. He lays bare the fundamental points that are obscured by the political wrangling. And when it comes to responsibility for the current state of things, everyone, including himself (for not explaining things clearly), shares a piece of it:

The media:

The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

Both parties in Congress:

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.

So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

Even the SCOTUS, after Citizens United v. FEC:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

And again, though I’ve mentioned it before, the health care portion was such a powerful call to action. This is why I campaigned and voted for him.

Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

*Inaugural Address: