Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT IS OBAMA'S ROLE TODAY?
The economy continues to worsen, and the experts are not pleased that the current lame duck government has left economic policy blowing in the wind until the new guys take over in January. Paul Krugman looks at why this is a bad thing, but doesn't get into what the president or president-elect should be doing to solve this problem. Floyd Norris, on the other hand, is more straightforward:
By resigning from the Senate before the current session began and allowing it to appear that a sense of drift could prevail until he is inaugurated, Mr. Obama may have missed an opportunity to exert leadership.
Maybe. While the consequences of the government's failure to act now are clear, it is less clear what Obama could and should be doing to influence policy before his inauguration. Even if he had maintained his Senate seat, it seems doubtful that he could gin up support for an automaker rescue package in the face of a presidential veto and filibustering Republican minority. There is the question of decorum -- branch overlap between Obama's future executive position and his current legislative one, and overlap between his goals as president and Bush's. I'm all in favor of setting aside decorum in favor of achievement, but I'm not sure I see a path for Obama to really exert any power until he's ensconced in the Oval office with larger Democratic congressional majorities.
Folks have been discussing moving inauguration closer to the election in the future, I don't see any reason why this is bad idea so long as adequate time is left for transition; we've already changed the date once in our history and it's clear that contemporary communications technology, among other advances, has created a situation where the new president could be in office around mid-December while the incumbent has a month remaining on the docket. An agreement could presumably be made that Bush would support, or refuse to veto, certain items that the new president will be supporting in January, but it's hard to imagine the present incumbent agreeing to such a power sharing agreement.
--Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (9)
"Folks have been discussing moving inauguration closer to the election..."
On of those folks is Sanford Levinson in his book Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong.
The time between Election Day and Inauguration Day is a pecadillo compared to the serious stuff, e.g., the Electoral College and equal Senate representation for each state. One person, one vote? Not in the United States of America.
Posted by: Gerald Scorse | November 21, 2008 9:49 AM
I wonder to what degree the transition makes it difficult for a President-Elect to take the sort of positions and stances that some are demanding of Obama. When you're being briefed by people associated with the outgoing administration, and need to keep the information flowing in (even if you disagree with their policies), do you jeopardize that if you either take stances against the policies of those providing you the information, or take stances premised (albeit without disclosing the information) on the information they're providing?
If you respect that there are people within the outgoing administration who are trying to do the right thing, and take the information they give you seriously, what sort of catastrophe might potentially be averted? Restricting or cutting off the information flow may not seem like a "big deal" if you think you're being gaslighted or simply don't care what the outgoing administration thinks or knows. But there's a risk in that type of assumption or disregard.
Posted by: Aaron | November 21, 2008 10:01 AM
While I agree that the gap between election and inauguration day is ridiculously long, I think the only reason we really care right now is because we want Bush gone sooner, when if it were in place he would have had the extra time at the beginning of the term.
It would shorten the lame duck period, but I don't think being a lame duck is why Bush is being useless right now. I think the real issue is that we're getting fidgety wishing that these jerks were already gone, when things wouldn't be terribly better on average if the time frames were different.
Posted by: ACLS | November 21, 2008 10:23 AM
Or we could move Election Day closer to the Inauguration. How about December 25th? Just about everyone has it off, anyhow.
Posted by: Steve | November 21, 2008 10:36 AM
I think the current constitution is seriously flawed in many ways. But you can't just tinker with it: if you shrank the gap between election and inauguration, then you wouldn't have time for the business of transition (selecting staff and cabinet). To make that work you'd have to go much further towards a British parliamentary system, where the opposition party has a Shadow Cabinet lined up well in advance of the election.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | November 21, 2008 11:22 AM
Lincoln had the same damn problem--7 states seceded between December and February, and formed the CSA. Hell, there was a Congressional peace conference to try and prevent the Civil War by settling the issues of slavery that Lincoln wasn't a part of.
FDR likewise had 4 months to kill before taking office--and in those 4 months, there was a 36% drop in the stock market.
Obama isn't the President. Bush is. And I'm sorry, being elected to be the NEXT President doesn't give him the ability to make the Treasury Secretary not an idiot, to make the guy who issues vetoes not an idiot, to make the members of Congress who have been voted out not idiots. On January 20, he'll have that power. But not one day sooner.
So expecting Obama to be able to run the government with no staff, no actual power, no access to critical information...are you fucking kidding me?
This is all a pretty pathetic attempt to blame Obama for Bush's failures. Seriously, Obama's term of office doesn't begin November 4. It begins January 20.
Posted by: anonymiss | November 21, 2008 11:31 AM
As for Obama's role in the current economic crisis, he doesn't have any actual power right now, but he could make a useful difference by talking about specific policies that he will implement immediately after inauguration.
One particularly useful move would be an ironclad commitment to provide stimulus in the form of higher subsidies for state governments to cover shortfalls in state tax revenue due to the recession. That would allow state governments to budget accordingly and maintain their workforce and spending plans, rather than be forced into layoffs and cuts. And they don't need the money before Jan 20th; they just need a promise that the money *will* come.
I think we probably need something similar for GM. They're in dire straits, but probably the right thing to do is to promise $8-10B of aid in January, with no purpose other than to stave off bankruptcy for one quarter. And then use that breathing space to sit down and figure out a long-term plan with a decent chance of success. They're in the ER gasping for breath: patch them up, give them oxygen, and keep them alive long enough for the necessary surgery.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | November 21, 2008 11:32 AM
I'm reminded of something Obama said at his press conference-- we can only have one President at a time. And let's face it, the current quagmire is not going to be resolved in two months.
Posted by: Persia | November 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Have the House vote to make Obama Speaker of the House. There is no requirement that the Speaker has to be a member of the House. Impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. Obama would then become President.
Posted by: Ron E. | November 21, 2008 12:22 PM