In a column in the latest Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes writes that the president has been “inviting members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, to meetings at the White House like never before.” I emphasized those last words as they confirm one of the biggest criticisms I have heard from Republicans (particularly through e-mails and messages from Hill staffers who read the blog) about the president — that he has not done a good job of congressional relations. While he consulted Senators on both sides of the aisle about Supreme Court nominations, he does not normally solicit congressional input on important matters of state. Some feel that had he taken the time just over a year ago to meet with leaders in Congress to flesh out a plan on Social Security, he may have succeeded in enacting some serious reform and thus spared his successors the difficulty of dealing with this popular federal program’s bankruptcy in the not-too-distant future.
One sign of whether the appointment of Josh Bolten as the president’s new chief of staff represents a serious shift in White House policy or just deck chair shuffling on a sinking ship will be how the new chief reshapes the president’s congressional relations’ office — and whether the president starts meeting more regularly with congressional leaders.
Something struck me as I wondered about the president’s failure to consult more regularly with Congress. That an executive who rarely reaches out to the legislative branch has failed to veto a single bill passed by said legislature. It seems sometimes that the president treats Congress the same way a negligent father treats his kids, so focused is he on his agenda that he rarely listens to their concerns. And perhaps feeling guilty for his neglect, that father indulges his children’s every whim, just as the president signs pork-laden bills. A good father, who regularly listens to his kids, is in a far better position to deny them their every request, without losing their affection — or respect. And better able to articulate (in a way the children will understand) the reasons behind that denial.
No wonder congressional Republicans are increasingly defying the president. Negligent/indulgent fathers find that their children become increasingly independent from them, frequently defying their authority. The president can make the last two-and-a-half years of his Administration a success the same way such a once-negligent father can save his family. By paying more attention to his “children.” The president must regularly consult with Congress so that no reporter can ever describe his meetings as Barnes has done, making it so reporters barely find those meetings newsworthy so regularly do they occur.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Curious as to whether there was a clinical term for negligent/indulgent fathers, I e-mailed the blogger Shrinkwrapped to ask his opinion. He wrote back and I reprint with his permission:
At the moment, I can’t think of a specific term for such a father, though the idea of an alternately emotionally neglectful and materially indulgent father fits the caricature of the work-a-holic corporate man of the 50’s. Part of the Narcissism of the baby boomers stems from just such emotional deprivation combined with material indulgence (which is taken to be the equivalent of love; such folks end up valuing things [including ideas] more than people.)
Hubris. It’s a bi-partisan problem.
If Mr. Clinton had liaised better with Congress, his medical proposals might have prompted a better dialog; if Mr. Bush had consulted with a bi-partisan Congressional delegation, Social Security might be different today.
Presidents need someone around who will say “NO!” on occasion.
The president should always be open to hear from people, Republicans and Democrats, we may disagree politically, but the job of elected officials, Conservative and Liberal, is to do what is best for America, and to work together.
If Mr. Clinton had liaised better with Congress, his medical proposals might have prompted a better dialog;
Actually, they might have politely laughed a little bit less.
if Mr. Bush had consulted with a bi-partisan Congressional delegation, Social Security might be different today.
Are you kidding? The libs aren’t going to let anything happen to Socialist Stupidity. Meeting with Congress would be about as useful as letting the Swimmer write the education bill.
So Bush meets with Congress, everybody feels all warm and fuzzy, then the libs stab him in the back. What’s the point?
Clinton didn’t act as a father to Congress: If anything, it was the other way around. The genius of checks and balances is that each branch of government disciplines the other two.
I don’t approve of GPW’s use of the family as a model (or even a metaphor) for American government. The family unit is a natural despotism — a good thing, too, because its subjects are children. Our American government, in contrast, is a republic, and republics presume that citizens can make responsible decisions on their own.
Portraying Bush as the paterfamilias of American government promotes authoritarianism, by infantilizing both Congress and the American citizenry.
Of course, the comparison isn’t perfect, Tim. It’s meant as an illustration. But, the similarity did strike me. And with the power of the purse, Congress has behaved like children.
I did not extend this metaphor of government to the population at large, but merely looked at the way the president treats Congress. I’m sorry you don’t approve. I believe the analogy, imperfect, though it is, works. And you have accurately shown some of those imperfections, but failed to consider the similarities.
You don’t suppose Bush’s disinterest with the Washington elites has anything to do with it, Dan?
That may be part of it, TGC, but Congress is more than just the elites.
Actually, I’m more positively inclined toward the President than I am Congress, given the 527 bill in the House.
Dan, was your comparison of Bush-Congress relationship to father-child relationship meant as a simile, metaphor or an analogy (as in logical argument)? Just curious.
Good question, Michigan-Matt. Seems more an analogy than a metaphor.
Well, the GOP better be careful. Because we all know that having a negligent/indulgent father turns ya queer.
Dan, I guess the analogy (as a tool of persuasive logic) has a central problem if that’s what it is… when Congress takes the upper hand on a policy issue (like hearings on the NSA wiretap program, more conservative immigration policy, new limits on federal judicial jurisdictions, greater funding for HUD, more money and strings for Flood Relief, etc) then it’s more like the child becoming the parent –which really doesn’t work in examining the Bush-Congress relationship.
Would the ports issue work? Troop levels in Iraq? Administration pressure on the Iraqis to identify the PM’s team.
And how about “Tough Love” episodes as examples where the relationship leads to severe consequences on the part of the parent? I can’t think of one of those yet for GWB. SocSec certainly wasn’t. PatActRenewal wasn’t. Alito not at all. Unless we redefine the Tough Love candidates to just the Dems, but that’s not fair.
Hmmmm.
Patrick (Gryph) said…
“Well, the GOP better be careful. Because we all know that having a negligent/indulgent father turns ya queer.”
Care to elaborate, Patrick?
I will repeat this question until I receive a response…
I therefore encourage you to oblige me.
Eric in Hollywood
__________________________________
I don’t normally respond to threats, but in this case I’ll make an exception.
It was a test of your Humor IQ.
Needless to say….you got an “F”.
No, strike that, I’ll give you a “D” instead. You get some points for providing me with amusement at your expense.
Totally off-topic, but one of the best examples of the “emotionally neglectful and materially indulgent” father is found in the movie, I Never Sang For My Father, starring a dashing and youthful Gene Hackman.
You’re more likely to end up in prison.
Obviously, to break this dysfunctional family dynamic, the White House needs a Maria von Trapp figure. Someone who can come in and add love and attention, with a degree of discipline still maintained. Maybe thhe President’s MVT would be Condi Rice as VP?
In 2008, Hillary is no Maria–she reminds me of Baroness Shroeder, but with a much bigger ass.
Dan-
Great post. In a related thought…. my biggest complaint with Bush is not that he doesn’t consult with Congress enough… it’s that he doesn’t communicate to his countrymen enough! I remember thinking that Reagan was kind of like a family member… he SET the agenda.
Bush hasn’t set the agenda for the country since March 2003. He has let events conquer hiim. Very frustrating.
Patrick…
What “threat”? I was being humorous, in light of Dan’s post on civility, ya doof.
Okay? We straight now?
Eric in Silliness
Scott, in #17, sounds like it’s time to bring Karen Hughes back to the White House.