I am curious as to how much power you all believe the president has and how much of his decisions are really created/shaped/executed by others around him i.e cabinet members, close friends, behind the scenes power brokers, etc.

I keep hearing people bitch about obama leading us to some socialist nightmare or changing his positions every week. Truthfully I doubt much of Obama's true beliefs have/will get executed much into presidential policy. As much of them would be controversial making it tough to pass congress and I think he is diplomatic enough to not expect his way with every issue. People always talk of the president as if they are the monarch of the land executing policy as they see it fit. Whereas i see the president like a big computer network router; directing ideas from those connected to him to send create various policies.

Obama may be a politician but he was educated in law. Obviously he is not heavily qualified to fabricate thesis's on economics, foreign policy, education, or various other topics and requires help from "experts" of those fields.

As much as we bash Bush; I think much of this holds for him. Many of the controversial actions and policy blunders were the screw ups of those around him. Cheney, for example, I think was the one pulling thing strings for foreign policy that led us to Iraq and all the sketchy intelligence used as justification.

4/5/2009 9:43:07 PM

Quote :

"People always talk of the president as if they are the monarch of the land executing policy as they see it fit."

They do?

4/5/2009 9:46:30 PM

I think part of the reason that people put so much emphasis on the president is because its easier to blame everything on one guy rather than a few hundred, but also because for many things, the buck stops with the president. He has veto power, and he has that to keep congress in check. So as much as congress is responsible for passing stupid, unconstitutional and just plain wrong laws in the first place, the president should be vetoing those same laws. Granted I think it might help to have line item veto power, but maybe if the presidents really wielded their veto power, we might see a little bit less of panic laws.

4/5/2009 9:55:24 PM

Because a charismatic leader whose high popularity ratings can bully congress into acting is extremely powerful.

Bush at 80% + popularity rating took the country to war and invaded two other nations with full congressional approval, both democratic and republican.

If Obama's policies pay off, or are perceived too, the republicans will completely drop their no stance and switch gears to capitalize or at least remain relevant. He'll basically have license to do whatever he wants.

4/5/2009 10:53:12 PM

He has the power to make the EU let Turkey join it.

4/5/2009 11:18:06 PM

asking a CEO of a private company to resign and advising his replacement to do what the former CEO wouldn't screams power

taking 2 G20 leaders into a backroom and convincing them to change their vote unanimously with the rest of the group screams power

picking a team to win super bowl and then rewarding their owner by naming them ambassador to ireland screams power

wonder what UNC will get after monday night...

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 12:38 AM. Reason : asdfghjk]

4/6/2009 12:34:03 AM

To be fair, the president's power over the auto industry CEOs comes from the fact that their companies can't find any other investors to keep them from going under. If you had 50+ billion you were willing to spend to keep the companies from spiraling into a bankruptcy they might not be able to emerge from intact- then you would be able to dictate terms to them as well.

In this sense, Obama's power comes from his willingness to bet money on something no investor out there will. In all things the willingness to do what others will not or can not gives a measure of power. The fact that this power rests with him and not congress is due to their decision to cede the administration of these funds to the office of the president. The decision to do this was a natural consequence of the disorganized and chaotic nature of congress and the parties. This is also why people accept loan sharks' and pay-day lenders terms despite the obvious potential for harm.

Anyways, I wouldn't call something like this a power of the presidency, just a natural consequence of the current situation and decisions of congress. Unlike other presidential powers, this one is purely situational and will disolve if and when the situation changes. That is of course as long as something particularly dangerous does not happen.

What would be particularly dangerous and disastrous would be if being a recipient of government bailout largess became a desirable position for companies. If being a bailout recipient were competitively advantageous, then we could see the marketplace evolve towards a state where this set of circumstances became the norm. Luckily, the natures of the congress and populist outrage conspire to keep bailout money a somewhat cumbersome and sticky asset to accept- i.e. recent bank bailout fund returns. As long as congress continues to act somewhat hamfistedly and schizophrenically then this power will remain a transient one - thank god.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ]

4/6/2009 1:52:32 AM

Quote :

"asking a CEO of a private company to resign and advising his replacement to do what the former CEO wouldn't screams power taking 2 G20 leaders into a backroom and convincing them to change their vote unanimously with the rest of the group screams power picking a team to win super bowl and then rewarding their owner by naming them ambassador to ireland screams power wonder what UNC will get after monday night..."

"imperial presidency"


in all seriousness, the president has either 1) as much power as the other branches or 2) as much power as the other branches give him/her

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ,]

4/7/2009 8:26:07 PM

Quote :

"2) as much power as the other branches give him/her"

Right, hence the complaint about an imperial presidency. The speaker does not believe the other branches are doing their constitutional duty to constrain the excesses.

4/8/2009 9:59:32 AM

If you look at the past century, it's obvious that the office of President has gained power. As much as it may have to do with presidents grasping for more power, I think it has much more to do with congress. Congress pretty much defers big decisions to the President when it's not politically viable for them to make a decision on it. The war in Iraq is a good example; while congress wasn't willing to actually declare war, they were more than happy to "authorize" the president to go to war. The problem is that once a branch of government gives up certain powers, it's difficult to reclaim those powers. The same could be said for most of the appropriation (or stimulus) bills that go through congress. Congress should be "earmarking" up these bills, saying exactly where the money is going and how it should be spent. Instead, they hand over these lump sums with very little instruction on how exactly to spend it.

4/8/2009 12:20:08 PM