The Myth of Presidential Leadership
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-myth-of-presidential-leadership-20130508
A worthwhile reminder
I have been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obamas failure to lead. Of course, that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental leadership tasknot building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not working his will the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did.
...
But the issue goes beyond that, to a willful ignorance of history. No one schmoozed more or better with legislators in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican votes did it get him on his signature initial priority, an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight months to get enough Democrats to limp over the finish line. How did things work out on his health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House?
No one knew Congress, or the buttons to push with every key lawmaker, better than LBJ. It worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress, largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own party in both houses. But after the awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen majorities receded, LBJs mastery of Congress didnt mean squat.
No one defined the agenda or negotiated more brilliantly than Reagan. Did he work his will? On almost every major issue, he had to make major compromises with Democrats, including five straight years with significant tax increases. But he was able to do itas he was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reformbecause he had key Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises.
His points towards the end about the lessons from Clinton's fiasco with Shelby and W's fiasco with Jeffords are well taken, also.