Presidential Domestic Policy - Essay Example

Presidential Domestic Policy: Obstacles to Change Presidential influence on the legislative bodies and public opinion can serve to exert significantinfluence on the formation and passing of domestic legislation in the United States. In addition to these indirect powers, the President also has the ability to control the budget, exercise veto power over legislation, and control the power of the 'bully pulpit' through national addresses, press conferences, and special presidential announcements. These aspects of the president's power in domestic affairs grant the president the ability to get legislation introduced and passed with the help and support Congress and public opinion. However, the President's domestic policies often meet obstacles as they attempt to implement broad and sweeping changes through the introduction of large-scale programs. Presidents are often confronted by the tension of a needed domestic policy change that is tempered with the deliberateness of the US legislative system, and must rely on the traditional impact of the opinion of the American voter. One of the obstacles that impede a President's ability to change domestic policy is the realization that domestic policy must adhere to the principle of 'government by the people'. While this ideal is as valid today as it was two centuries ago, it has been tempered by the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups. While the power of public opinion can speak through the president, "lobbying gives special advantages to vocal vested interests and that negotiations carried on behind closed doors can override the.wishes of the whole community in public decision making" (Public Governance 5). Lobbying can influence key congressional votes that may be required to enact a piece of legislation. While a President has the power to veto unfavorable domestic policy bills, lobbyists have the power to kill legislation that may be favorable to the President before it ever gets out of committee. Special interests have undermined the principle of 'government by the people' and influence peddling has presented Presidents with a significant obstacle to their ability to pass domestic legislation. Even without the undue influence of consultants, lobbyists, and campaign donations domestic policy is routinely subjected to an increased scrutiny that is based on ideological concerns. We may hear this characterized as the fight between the left and right, between liberals and conservatives, or the more extreme use of the terms free market and socialism. These opposing philosophical viewpoints have made it difficult to craft legislation that will be favored by one camp, while not being totally unacceptable to the other. Health care has languished in the realm of inaction for decades as the critical need for legislation is outweighed by the fear of creeping socialism. During the early years of the Clinton Presidency, a consensus could not be reached on health care as the support broke along ideological lines and compromise could not be reached. According to Light, "Central to a President's success is conciliation not challenge; cooperation, not conflict" (291). While the details of a health care program can be compromised, ideology does not have the political flexibility that is required to be negotiated. Even conservative European health care policies are typically significantly more liberal than in the US, yet Clinton's relatively conservative health care bill became bogged down on the issue of ideological differences, rather than on the content of the legislation (Starr). Domestic policy is often burdened with ideology as socially progressive Presidents confront the traditional free market forces of the US political system. Presidential domestic policies are by definition grand and ambitious projects that may be impeded simply because of their complexity and cost. These Presidential projects may bear the Presidents name and will become a significant part of the administration's historical legacy. The New Deal could not have been implemented on any smaller scale, and was only able to gain support due to the dire economic circumstances that faced the country in 1932. Barak Obama's college tuition program may meet opposition simply because the massive deficit and economic downturn has made the implementation too expensive to consider. Kehoe reports "Obama plans to help college students pay for their education by providing a $4,000 annual tuition grant in exchange for community service". While this program may be able to gain the votes needed to support the bill in the incoming sympathetic Congress, it may never see the light of day due to the costs. The initial start up costs and the ongoing maintenance and administrative fees may prohibit its implementation in the face of economic bailouts that could top $1 trillion. Yet, smaller scale programs, and piecemeal policies would not have the gravity and impact that is required to become a legacy of Presidential policy and power. The broad and sweeping nature of a President's domestic policy needs widespread support, but will be voted on by a Congress that is mainly obligated to a specific voting bloc known as their constituents. It may be difficult for an educational policy that benefits the country's youth to gain support from the retirees that reside in Southern Florida. This tension over policy and issues can lose critical votes in districts where the demographics may be sharply defined by age, race, or educational level. The Senator or Congressman will need to satisfy the desires of their voters, and doing otherwise may be tantamount to committing political suicide. Without being reasonably assured of these few key votes, the President's policy would likely be relegated to the back burner, rather than being pursued in the face of a possible failure to come to a vote, or the probability of losing a high profile vote on the Senate floor. George Bush has been constricted in his ability to shape domestic policy due to the pragmatism of priorities that have limited the time and resources available for domestic social programs. Since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and the Prescription Drug Act in 2003, no major domestic legislation that is supported by President Bush has been enacted into law. In the wake of 9/11 the administration's focus has been on the War on Terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been no action taken on health care, education, the environment, or comprehensive energy. These issues have been sent to the back of the line as Bush and his staff spend their resources on what they consider to be the most pressing problems facing America. Even the privatization of Social Security, a program that has been vigorously supported by Bush, has not been raised in public as an issue since the launch of the War on Terror. To begin to understand the formation and implementation of a successful domestic policy it is helpful to examine the highly successful 'Space Race' that was executed by President Kennedy. The timing of the program was critical, as the economic times were good and America had not yet become distracted by the Vietnam War. In addition, Kennedy's announcement of the program was more that simply a public notification; it was a sales pitch. Kennedy used his power of public persuasion to reduce any resistance to the program when he said in 1961, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project...will be more exciting, or more impressive to mankind, or more important...and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish...." (qtd. in "Racing to the Moon"). Kennedy tapped the imagination of the voter and instilled excitement in constituency groups across the board. Setting realisitc goals that people looked forward to accomplishing bolstered this broad based appeal and solidified the public support that was needed to propel the program through the Congress. The Space Race was more than just a domestic program; it was a challenge to America that offered the hope of a brighter future. Franklin Roosevelt used his fireside chats in a similar way to convey the sense of challenge and hope to the American public. Lobbyists would have no opportunity to overcome the enormous public support that these men gained from their 'bully pulpit'. While there are many obstacles to a President's successful implementation of a domestic policy or program, many can be overcome by laying a foundation of favorable public opinion before the legislation is written and before any votes are cast. In conclusion, Presidents are often characterized as a domestic policy or a foreign policy president. However, they all face considerable obstacles when trying to craft, pass, and implement important domestic programs. These programs are, by nature, expansive and costly programs that may become the legacy of the President and can help shape history's judgment of the President's term. The policies will gain names that will become household words like The New Deal, Great Society, and The Space Race. However, cost, ideology, priorities, and voter demographics can all work against a President's domestic goals. An unfriendly Congress can stagnate any progress, but even a sympathetic Congress may have trouble in times of an economic downturn or a nation faced with a war. These obstacles can be overcome when the personality of the President is able to reach the imagination of the American public and have some influence on one of the most important components of a successful domestic policy; favorable public opinion. Works Cited Kehoe, Katherine. "Obama: Tuition Costs a Priority." The Badger Herald 6 Oct. 2008 [Madison WI]. Kennedy, John. "Racing to the Moon." Space Race. National Space and Air Museum. 23 Nov. 2008 Light, Paul C. The President's Agenda. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University press, 1999. Public Governance and Territorial Development. Paris: Public Governance Committee, 2007. Starr, Paul. "The Ideological War Over Health Care; Conservatives Ignore History."The New York Times 4 Feb. 1992. Read More