In a riff inspired by the blogger Matthew Yglesias a few years ago, I proposed what I called the Green Lantern theory of the presidency to describe people who attribute all policy failures and compromise to a lack of presidential will. (For the uninitiated, the Green Lantern Corps are comic book heroes whose abilities to wield a “power ring” depend on their willpower.)
These assumptions, which come up all the time in political coverage and commentary (and are often encouraged by presidential candidates, particularly before they take office), are now creeping in to reporting and debate on potential policy responses to the elementary school massacre in Newtown, CT.
Many of those sounding Green Lantern-esque notes are advocates of stricter gun control like The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, who called on Obama “and the rest of us” to “change the politics of guns,” and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said, “It’s time for the president to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do—not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?”
In other cases, however, reporters have approvingly channeled Green Lantern-style arguments, or raised similar ideas themselves. The New York Times, for instance, recently quoted former Congressional aide Steve Elmendorf stating that, “Nothing’s going to happen here unless Obama decides to put it front and center.” More notably, in a “White House Memo” news analysis piece, the NYT’s Peter Baker acknowledged the political opposition confronting Obama but framed the ”critical choice” facing the president as largely one of resolve:
Should he invest his energy and the stature he won with his re-election last month in a fight he may believe in but is not sure he can actually win? And with his last election now behind him, is he willing or even able to shift the dynamics in Washington to make such fights winnable?
The reality is far from what Green Lanternites might assume. As Ezra Klein recounted in an admirably thorough overview of the political science literature in The New Yorker, the practical powers of the president to change public opinion or pass legislation in Congress are often wildly overstated. The chief executive has some leverage in promoting proposals that are already popular or increasing the salience of certain issues, but policy stalemates in Washington are not easily overcome. Presidential speeches typically fail to change public opinion (as even the “Great Communicator” Ronald Reagan came to understand), and when the president takes a position on an issue before Congress his actions often polarize opposition legislators (as Obama has learned). To take a recent example, George W. Bush tried very hard to sell Social Security private accounts at the beginning of his second term and got nowhere despite enjoying unified GOP control of Congress.
For proposals that require legislative approval (as most significant changes on gun policy would), these limitations on Obama’s presidential influence are compounded by GOP control of the House and the de facto 60-vote requirement to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Unless the latest tragedy proves to have some extraordinary impact on public opinion (rather than a brief Columbine-style bump), it’s not clear how Obama trying harder or “leading” would force John Boehner and his caucus to offer concessions. (Remember, Republicans already being forced to discuss compromises with Obama over the “fiscal cliff” and debt ceiling, which creates pressure to prove their toughness to conservative activists on other issues.)
To their credit, some journalists have reported these obstacles clearly to their readers. For instance, Michael Crowley’s piece in Time stands out as especially comprehensive among early coverage in noting the GOP’s ability to block legislation in the House and Senate, the divided state of public opinion on gun control, and the likelihood that attention to the issue will fade.
Funny, those of us who remember the Bush Administration remember how leadership was used for ill and the effect it had.
If democrats wanted to, they could make their case to the American people and let the American people sway the votes. And if the opposition wanted to complain about the mean true things the democrats said to them, then they would pay the price in the polls, with the people, and in the media for their pettiness and skewed priorities.
Just like the democrats used to, on a regular basis, before Bush f@cked up Katrina. The only reason why republicans get away with bs like "the defacto 60 vote supermajority requirement" is because journalists don't hold republicans accountable for obstruction and neither do democrats. Why? Because of bs like "when the president takes a position on an issue before Congress his actions often polarize opposition legislators (as Obama has learned)."
Make the radicals pay a price for putting ideology over the interests of the people and you will see change. The republicans have no incentive to compromise beccause there is no downside to not compromising in accountability free politics. Republicans get different rules, so of course they have different behaviors. Liberals need to find a way to change these rules because they are heavily slanted against them.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 20 Dec 2012 at 12:32 PM
And since we're talking about gun legislation, we also might want to examine how previous gun laws got enacted:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
Particularily this one which was allowed to expire under the Bush Administration.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Myself, I don't see the need to ban guns, in spite of their danger, just as I don't see the need to ban semi-trucks, in spite of their obvious danger to other drivers.
We make truckers qualify for the right to drive and give them special oversight over how long they drive and whatnot. Gun owners should get the same oversight, qualify for the same licences.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 20 Dec 2012 at 12:44 PM
Just like they do in Switzerland:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
No, presidents aren't green lanterns, but they have a spot in the public eye, they have a position if leadership, and they have a duty to their people.
And, unfortunately, that duty is sometimes a dirty one. Republicans do the dirty work, they politicize everything, often lying about 3/4s of it along the way. By doing so they get things done.
Democrats don't politicize enough. They are scared to make their case, scared Fox News will call them names, scared of the word radical.
Believing in something doesn't make you a radical, especially when your belief is rooted in evidence and reality. If you choose not to use evidence and reality to make your political case because it feels dirty, that is a decision to be ineffectual.
And for those who say 'those democrats should hold themselves to a higher code than the republicans':
A) the republicans' problem isn't that they fight. Their problem is who they fight for and how they fight (by lying all the time).
B) as Ezra Klein said:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
"The aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws."
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 20 Dec 2012 at 12:59 PM
I fully agree with Brendan. In addition, there's the problem that anything which could get enacted and be found Constitutional would be inadequate to deal with the problem of crazed mass murderers.
If all guns and all ammunition were banned and confiscated, I think that would help. But that's not remotely Consitutional.
OTOH suppose all they do is, e.g., to enact an upper limit on the number of bullets a clip holds. That would be of negligible help. It's quick and easy to put in a new clip. A shooter could maintain the same killing power by bringing a larger number of spare clips. Major Hasan killed and wounded 42 people at an army base using pistols, which didn't have the large clips available with some rifles.
#4 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Fri 21 Dec 2012 at 11:32 AM
Are any of you Mothers or Mothers to be or have been??? If so you might like to check out "Onemillionmomsforguncontrol" online. It's on Facebook but also just online. Add your name and your help if possible to these women pushing for strict gun control just as MADD had done.
Kristof was helpful last Sunday in his article in NY Times op-ed about regulating guns in much the same manner we regulate cars--and trucks for that matter. We license guns for hunting and fishing. There is no reason anyone wanting to have or use a gun should not first pass a test, wait to be checked and pay through the nose for your renewable license. No, it won't solve all the possibilities of someone killing others but it will lessen the chance and shorten the number of intentional or accidental guns shootings/killings. Every developed country in the world--and many that are underdeveloped--have strict laws and fewer killings--percentage-wise and number per 100,000 than we do. Others find us very foolish and ignorant in the way we refuse to regulate the most dangerous item in society--a gun!!!
#5 Posted by Trish, CJR on Sat 22 Dec 2012 at 03:33 PM
This is my prediction for Obama's second term. Obama will not get as many legislative victories in his second term as he did in his first. As a consequence of this left-wingers will say that Obama did not push hard enough in his second term and write more Green Lanterny articles. They will write if he pushes hard like in his first 40 days he would get what he wants from Congress.
#6 Posted by JP, CJR on Fri 28 Dec 2012 at 08:37 PM
To see a recent example of how guns have prevented mass killings, look at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp
This event got very little media coverage.
#7 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Wed 2 Jan 2013 at 11:07 AM