On April 10th, President Barack Obama paid homage to the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the 1964 legislation that banned racial segregation. Part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society,” the law is one of the signature legislative achievements in American history, and a product of Johnson’s legislative genius. Johnson argued, cajoled, schemed and bargained his way around the powerful Southern bloc of the Senate (of which he was once a part), utilizing President Kennedy’s death, a Democratic majority, the ebb and tide of public opinion, and every ounce of political capital he could muster to jam the Civil Rights Bill through Congress and into law.
The shadow of Johnson’s legislative victories looms large for any modern president, but must loom particularly large for President Obama, whose legislative achievements pale in comparison. With the exception of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obama has done little to achieve the broad domestic policy goals he set at the beginning of his term in office. Immigration reform is at a standstill, and a substantive cap and trade bill is a dead and broken dream. Entitlement spending continues to run amok. Is President Obama to blame for a lack of legislative progress? Or are stalled and forgotten political goals inevitable in modern America?
The answer is more complex than “partisanship,” although partisanship has played an enormous role in halting legislation. Tom Mann, a member of the Brookings Institution, cites “a Republican House of Representatives and the sort of relentless opposition from the out party” as the primary causes of Obama’s failure to advance his agenda. Even moderate Republicans shirk bipartisanship for fear of facing extreme challengers in upcoming primaries.
But partisan rancor is an insufficient excuse for legislative apathy. Ronald Reagan found himself with a Democratic House in 1986, yet managed to pass the Tax Reform Act, which lowered rates and reformed the tax code. This legislation, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, represents the “biggest and most complete overhaul of the tax code in post-war America”. And although President Johnson did oversee a Democratic Majority in Congress, many of these Democrats were staunch segregationists. Civil rights legislation was by no means inexorable. Southern Democrats launched the longest filibuster in Senate history, and Johnson needed Republican votes to pass the bill. House Republican opposition to President Obama’s agenda is strong, but it is difficult to imagine that this opposition is more arduous than Southern opposition to civil rights legislation.
Johnson’s presidency, as the New York Times describes, represented “the high-water mark for American presidents pushing through sweeping legislation.” Obama’s presidency has been marked by a flurry of activity in his first two years (the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and an economic stimulus package) and extreme political gridlock and dysfunction in the following four. It is difficult to imagine, given the current political climate, that the Obama administration will be able to push anything meaningful through Congress in his final two years in office. Given the strength of President Obama’s initial electoral mandate, his first two years probably were his best opportunity to pass any meaningful legislation. “Day in and day out,” Peter Baker of the New York Times writes, “the president with the grand aspirations finds himself signing orders and memos that barely move the needle.”
Johnson also possessed many advantages that modern presidents lack. As The Economist points out, Johnson lived in an era of “unabashed pork-barrel spending.” Johnson could essentially buy votes, promising military bases and infrastructure spending to the districts of compliant Congressmen. But modern budget hawks vigilantly monitor the budget for any signs of vote buying, and have all but ended pork barrel spending. Johnson also benefited from a lack of campaign finance oversight; Robert Caro’s seminal four-part biography, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, describes Johnson, as a Congressman and Senator, distributing secret briefcases of cash to the campaigns of eager Congressmen and Senators across the nation.
It would be easy to argue that the 1960s represented a fundamentally different political era, in that there was a bipartisan consensus which certain issues required addressing. But the same could be said for today. For instance, about half of all Americans support strengthening the border, and 8 out of 10 Americans believe in some form of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and yet immigration reform remains stagnant. President Obama might blame this on the stubbornness of Tea Party Republicans. But I do not believe Lyndon Johnson would have made the same excuse. Because as the Economist points out, to Johnson, “the weaknesses of his foes were a gift.”
Obama lacks the legislative activism that defined Johnson’s presidency. He is seen as aloof and removed from the political scene in Washington, unwilling to play the schmoozing game. His personal relationships with Congressional leadership are weak at best, and marked by a lack of trust. In his 2014 State of the Union, lambasting Congress for its lack of action, he indicated he would go around Congress and use executive orders to advance his agenda.
Rather than decry the current state of politics and bemoan the lack of progress, President Obama should utilize public opinion, political pressure, and focus on the areas where Republicans and Democrats are largely in agreement (i.e. on immigration). Otherwise, regardless of what one thinks of his agenda, he seems consigned to a presidency of unfulfilled promise.
John Connolly is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.connolly@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 5 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | YesterdayIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
