Ciao!

Why SOTU doesn't really matter

02.04.2005

There's been some question about my statement that presidential SOTUs (State of the Unions) shouldn't really matter much. I'd like to (briefly) defend that position.

We often overestimate the power of the president. Unlike presidents in, say, Latin America, the US president has very little power. By that, I mean that the US president has a lot of power in the world because he's the US president. But he has very little power, vis à vis the legislature (or the courts), when compared to other presidents around the world (one of the world's strongest presidents is the French). And most prime ministers are stronger (as executive), vis à vis their legislatures, than most presidents.

The US president doesn't have the power to disband the legislature. Or the power to call for early elections. He has no special prerogative over certain areas of legislation (e.g. many presidents have direct power over macro-economic matters, which are no longer in the hands of the legislature at all). Even over the military, where he exercises the most power, Congressional oversight is extensive, as is the fact that, while the president can order the military to do pretty much anything (except go to war) w/o immediate legislative approval, the military's budget is entirely in the hands of Congress. In short, the president is pretty much restricted to signing or vetoing whatever legislation Congress puts on his desk.

He can plead them to do this or that. He can use his personal influence, charisma, or whatever cards he has at his disposal (but legislators have their own cards, too). But he can only say "yes" or "no" to Congress-approved legislation. And few presidents are fond of using their veto power. More often than not, a bill that's close enough to what they want, is good enough to sign.

What this means, is that SOTU's nothing more than a presidential wish list. A shopping list. Except the person doing the shopping can decide that, no, we're not getting snack food, and I think 2% milk is better than skim, etc. And all the president can do is take the bag of groceries & put them away in the cupboard, or ask the legislature to go shopping again. More often than not, it's not worth the trouble. Sure, it's not the brand of cereal you like. But it's already in the house, you might as well put it in the cupboard; no sense asking the legislature to drive all the way back to the store.

And even if the president has a majority in the legislature, keep in mind that US parties are weakly organized. Especially compared to other country's parties (e.g the tightly disciplined Euroepan parties). In part, because every politician's elected individually; there are no party lists. So party IDs are mostly just labels, useful to most people, but not much substance behind them. And the labels mean different things in different places to different people.

US political parties are just giant potlucks. There are two big tents, and people go to one potluck or the other. Some people always go to the one w/ the frank & beans. Some people will only go to the vegan one. But lots of people might go back & forth, depending on their mood, the music selection, where their friends go, etc. And no one at either tent can kick anyone else out. You go to the red tent, or the blue tent. If most people at the red tent want to listen to country music, well, you can stay & listen, or go to the blue tent. It's up to you.

And. More importantly. There are elections every two years for the legislature. So. The president has just asked the legislature to follow his plan. But each representative or senator has his/her own plan. And it involves getting reelected. Or moving up ('08 is just around the corner). Their first loyalty? Their constituents (because that's where the votes are). That's you & me.

Focusing on presidential politics is dangerous. Because it misrepresents the system, leading to dashed expectations. We shouldn't pin all our hopes on the one part of government that can do the least to fulfill our expectations.

Posted by Miguel at 01:04 PM

Comments

Posted by: j.scott barnard at February 4, 2005 02:18 PM

Posted by: MB at February 5, 2005 01:15 PM

Posted by: Miguel at February 6, 2005 03:30 AM