How does Obama’s use of unilateral powers compare to other presidents?

President Barack Obama meets with Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, who briefs him and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the potential cases of non-travel related Zika announced by the Florida Department of Health earlier today, in the Oval Office, July 27, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama meets with Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, who briefs him and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the potential cases of non-travel related Zika announced by the Florida Department of Health earlier today, in the Oval Office, July 27, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Mark Major, Pennsylvania State University

During a 2008 town hall event, then Senator Barack Obama told the audience that as a legal scholar and teacher, he took the Constitution “very seriously.” He went on to criticize the Bush administration, asserting:

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.”

When he was a presidential candidate, it was easy for Obama to criticize the unpopular Bush administration. Once he was in the Oval Office, though, and facing what two congressional scholars call the “uncompromising opposition” of the Republican Party, Obama’s stance on executive power transformed. He realized that, as John F. Kennedy said, “Many things can be done by a stroke of the presidential pen.”

Kennedy was referring to the unilateral powers of the presidency.

Ways to go it alone

Presidents have more than one way to act without the support of Congress and the courts.

These presidential powers include executive orders, proclamations, national security directives and memoranda. The powers matter because many important policies like integrating the military and institutions like the Peace Corps are products of presidents going it alone.

Mark Major

Mark Major

These actions are often controversial because these powers are not part of the Constitution. Although presidents since George Washington have been using unilateral authority, scholars point out that the use of these powers have become more significant under recent presidents. Indeed, University of Chicago scholar William G. Howell argues that the capacity to go it alone is a key characteristic of the modern presidency.

So President Obama is following a rich tradition. As Concordia University professor Graham Dodds writes in his valuable book, “Take Up Your Pen,” Teddy Roosevelt provided the template for the modern president – a model that all of his successors have emulated, regardless of party.

Although he didn’t invent executive power, Roosevelt redefined what could be construed as legitimate. He “established and largely institutionalized the practice of regularly using unilateral presidential directives for significant purposes,” Dodd tells us. Roosevelt issued more than 1,000 executive directives in areas from race relations to simplifying English spelling. Echoing contemporary Republican complaints about President Obama, critics of Roosevelt decried his administration as a “dictatorship” and declared him “Caesar.”

A busy 100 days

For his part, President Obama hit the ground running once in office. According to one report, he issued more unilateral directives “in his first 100 days than any president since Franklin Roosevelt.”

Early in his tenure, Obama issued directives banning torture, made efforts to make his administration more transparent and ordered Guantanamo Bay closed. He also issued a series of pro-labor directives that reversed Bush-era policies.

Throughout his two terms, Obama has implemented major administrative regulations, nearly 50 percent more than President George W. Bush. These include workplace protections, raising the minimum wage for federal employees, extending rights to marginalized groups including an order banning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers and raising fuel efficiency standards. The New York Times recently noted that under Obama’s progressive actions, “the government has literally placed a higher value on human life.”

Despite all of this activity, Obama has also shown some restraint in this polarized political era. Consider executive orders – one of the most frequently used unilateral powers with more than 15,000 issued since the Washington administration. Obama has signed just 33 annually on average, fewer than any president since Grover Cleveland during his first term.

One reason for Obama’s cautiousness may be that presidents are less likely to issue directives during periods of divided government. During Obama’s first term, when he enjoyed unified government during his first two years in office, he averaged 37 executive orders per year. This average dropped to 29 in his second term when Republicans were running Congress.

A team of one

So how effective are these unilateral moves?

Research shows usually quite effective. Congress and the courts have trouble pushing back against presidential directives. However, Obama has been frustrated on a few fronts.

For one, Congress has thwarted Obama’s efforts at tackling gun violence. The president’s lack of progress in this arena demonstrates the limits of a unilateral approach. As Bowdoin professor Andrew Rudalevige tells us, “The most substantive shifts Obama is proposing require legislative approval” – and he didn’t get it. Congress also rejected Obama’s early directive to shut down Guantanamo.

The Supreme Court, for its part, has effectively nullified Obama’s actions on immigration reform and temporarily halted his historic reductions of power plant emissions mandated through the Environmental Protection Agency.

No change ahead

Expect more presidential directives from the next administration. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have promised, keeping with tradition, to use the unilateral tools while in the White House.

Additionally, if Trump wins, Obama will likely use his powers to implement last-minute agenda items like trade, immigration and health care. A flurry of last-minute orders is typical when the opposing party is taking over the White House.

While his legislative accomplishments like the Affordable Care Act are noteworthy, President Obama’s legacy will be defined in no small part by what he did alone. Obama joins a long line of presidents who were suspicious of these powers before taking office, but who realized the strong appeal of them as a sitting president.

Paul Begala, an adviser to the Clinton administration, put it best, “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Five key debate moments that altered the course of a presidential race

Robert Speel | Pennsylvania State University

 

Every presidential election year in my American Political Campaigns and Elections course, I get an opportunity to spend a full lecture discussing with students some of the famous moments from historic presidential debates.

Robert Speel

Robert Speel

I explain to students that while the presidential candidate debates are supposed to be about presenting policy alternatives to undecided voters, almost no one pays any attention or remembers what the candidates say about policy.

Instead the media covers the debates and voters interpret the debates in a winner and loser format. Which candidate connected to voters the best? Who had the best zinger or inspirational line?

Some famous moments in debate history have reinforced the public’s negative perceptions of candidates, while other key moments have helped dispel such notions.

Here are five from past presidential debates, chosen for their impact on the election campaign and outcome.

1960: Kennedy-Nixon

In 1960, Richard Nixon had served as the Republican vice president for eight years after six years in Congress. Senator John Kennedy had served in Congress for 14 years, but was only 43 years old with a youthful appearance and image. Using the still relatively new medium of television, Kennedy and Nixon agreed to the first general election presidential candidate debates in American history, four in total. (The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were for a U.S. Senate seat; they did not debate in the 1860 presidential election.)

Kennedy’s goal during the debates was to ease voters’ fears that he was too young and inexperienced to serve as president. Nixon, on the other hand, repeatedly emphasized his own foreign affairs experience in campaign advertising.

While Kennedy appeared comfortable and confident in front of television cameras, Nixon famously declined to wear makeup, ended up sweating under the camera lights, and sometimes shifted his eyes, unsure where to look. While the legend that Kennedy won the debate among television viewers and Nixon won the debate among radio listeners may be a myth, the debate did dispel the image that Kennedy was somehow less prepared than Nixon to be president.

Richard Nixon wipes his face during the first televised presidential debate.
CNN

1980: Carter-Reagan

Democratic President Jimmy Carter had presided over foreign policy crises in 1979 – including the taking of hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Iran – and persistent economic problems during his presidency. Some voters perceived him as ineffective. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan, the former governor of California, was calling for a nuclear buildup during the Cold War and had a history of criticizing entitlement programs. Some also thought he was too old to lead the nation. (At age 69, Reagan would become the oldest man ever elected president.)

The debates were delayed due to disagreement over whether John Anderson, an independent candidate whose polling numbers had dropped from over 20 percent to under 10 percent in the weeks before the election, should be allowed to participate. Carter and Reagan finally agreed to one debate a week before the election.

At the debate, Carter tried to reinforce Reagan’s image as a war hawk willing to start nuclear wars. In a key moment, Carter said that he had discussed politics with his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, to ask her what was the biggest issue in the election, and she answered “nuclear weaponry.”

But Reagan came away with the most memorable moment. After Carter mentioned Reagan’s past opposition to Medicare, Reagan tilted his head, smiled and said, “There you go again” to audience laughter – perhaps an attempt to dispel Carter’s attempts to make Reagan look dangerous.

In his closing statement, Reagan then spoke to voters through the cameras and asked “Are you better off than you were four years ago?,” alluding to the state of the economy. Polls in the last week indicated a major surge in support for Reagan.

‘There you go again.’

1984: Reagan-Mondale

Before the 1984 election, Reagan was 73 years old, already the oldest president in American history. Age was a potential issue for voters. During the first debate with Walter Mondale, the 56-year-old former vice president and former two-term U.S. senator, Reagan occasionally lost focus and seemed confused. After that first debate, Reagan’s large lead over Mondale in polls began to narrow.

During the second debate, a moderator asked Reagan whether his age should be an issue in the campaign. Reagan answered, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

The audience laughed – Mondale included – and the media eagerly replayed and reprinted the joke. Reagan won in November in a landslide.

During a 1984 campaign debate, Reagan turned the issue of age on its head.

1992: Bush-Clinton-Perot

The 1992 presidential election involved the only three-candidate general election debates in American history. Incumbent George H.W. Bush needed to overcome an image that he was somewhat out of touch with recent problems in the American economy, an image partly shaped by media reports that Bush had seemed amazed at the technology of supermarket bar code scanners, which had been around since 1976.

In contrast, Clinton had famously told an upset voter earlier in the year that “I feel your pain.” Ross Perot, a Texas multibillionaire, was not a Bush fan and was running a populist and centrist campaign focused on balanced budgets and opposition to trade agreements.

The second of three presidential debates that year was held in a town meeting format. During the debate, Bush was seen on camera checking his wristwatch twice, giving viewers the impression that he would rather be somewhere else. And when an audience member asked a question that made no sense, mixing up the national debt and economic recession, Bush told the audience member that he didn’t understand her question, while Clinton walked over to her and invited her to tell him more about her economic problems.

This debate reinforced voter images of the candidates: Bush seemed less interested in the problems of average people, while Clinton expressed compassion toward voters.

Clinton expresses compassion.

2012: Obama-Romney

At the first debate of 2012, Obama did not appear as energetic as usual and didn’t give any of the snappy answers that viewers expect and that tend to dominate media attention after debates. Following the debate, polls indicated that Romney had taken a small lead over Obama.

But at the second debate, when Romney asserted inaccurately that Obama had not referred to the attack on the Benghazi consulate in Libya as an “act of terror” for two weeks, moderator Candy Crowley interjected to correct Romney’s mistake. Obama chimed in “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” as Obama supporters at home reacted in delight at Romney’s embarrassment. Romney compounded his unfortunate choices of words at the debate by noting that as governor, he had received “whole binders full of women” to consider for positions in state government.

The awkward comment became an instant joke, with dozens of internet memes circulating in the days after the debate.

Obama gets an assist from Candy Crowley.

Looking ahead

While we don’t yet know which comments or events at this year’s debates may affect the outcome of the election or remain memorable, we can expect that candidates will do their best to dispel negative images of themselves – while reinforcing negative images of their opponents.

Watch for Hillary Clinton to focus on insulting comments that Donald Trump has made about people or groups and to focus on some of Trump’s past business practices: Trump University, the Trump Foundation and his casino businesses. She will also likely try to expose some of Trump’s populist claims – like Mexico paying for a wall on the border – as devoid of substance. At the same time, she will try to reinforce her own image as an experienced political leader.

And watch for Trump to focus on past errors made by Clinton, like her foreign policy judgment, her use of a private email server and meetings with donors to the Clinton Foundation. Trump may also attempt to dispel his image as being inexperienced in world affairs by appearing calm and confident in his assertions, while pointing to past mistakes American leaders have made. He may also try to focus on some substantive and moderate policy proposals to distinguish himself from the bellicose firebrand he appears to be on the stump.

The campaign staffs of both candidates have likely been rehearsing some zingers that could be used in the first debate. But candidates need to be careful about making them sound spontaneous. If they sound rehearsed, they’ll reinforce one of the worst qualities people can think of a candidate: that they’re fake.The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Skip to toolbar