Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
As any middle-school social studies student knows, the American system of government consists of three branches: the executive branch, which enforces the laws; the judicial branch, which interprets the laws; and the legislative branch, which makes the laws. The political press, though, often seems to be operating under a different model, one in which the president is less the top executive than a philosopher-king. A recent case in point: a Politico story published this week under the headline, âPublic option fate in Obamaâs hands.â
The pieceâs lede:
The Senate Finance Committee spent more than five hours debating the public health insurance option Tuesday before voting down two Democratic amendments to add it to the bill.
But the one person who will effectively decide its fate wasnât even in the room.
That person, of course, is Barack Obama. And just to drive the point home, the story continues:
In the Senate, Obama will work closely with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who speaks with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel several times a day. But the final decision rests almost entirely on the presidentâs shoulders.
Even assuming that this is overstatement for effect, itâs still at odds not just with those long-ago civics lessons, but the underlying logic behind much of American political journalism. Every day that Congress is in session, a horde of reporters swarm Capitol Hill, tracking the latest negotiations and deal-making. Many of them work for Politico, which publishes a useful âDaily Congressâ newsletter to keep its readers
abreast of the latest legislative developments. If the final decision on one of the most contentious aspects of the top domestic policy debate will be made âalmost entirelyâ in the White House, what is all that activity for? Is it beside the point?
Itâs not, because the president doesnât get to make legislative decisions on his own. In fact, as the article gets deep into the weeds of the debate over the public option, a different picture emerges. This passage comes near the end:
As jockeying gives way to voting, Schumer and other public plan proponents are expected to tweak the proposals to attract moderates, and to move the bill closer to 60 votes. If Democrats show
movement towards the public option, the White House could be less inclined to go with one of the weaker compromises, such as Snoweâs trigger plan or Conradâs nonprofit insurance cooperatives.
That sounds like an entirely plausible scenario. But it is one in which the range of political possibilities is dependent on the actions of various individuals, many of them elected members of Congress, each of
whom have independent agency and the ability to form coalitions and operate strategically. There is no âone personâ who will âeffectively decideâ the outcomeâand suggesting that there is gives readers the
wrong impression of where power lies and how decisions are made.
Now, itâs also possible to underplay the presidentâs role, and his responsibility. As the article correctly notes, Obama will surely play a role in some of the key strategic decisions yet to be made, including whether to try to use âreconciliationâ to pass a bill and how hard to press reluctant Democrats not to support a filibuster. And given the resistance within the Democratic caucus, itâs hard to see how a public option can pass if the White House doesnât eventually come out more strongly in favor.
But thereâs a wide gulf between noting that the president is an important player and stating that the outcome is in his handsâand too often, the press comes down on the wrong side.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.