Last night I had a brief conversation with a Congressman (not a freshman by any means) who was just defeated. While I do not agree with him on all issues, I do respect him. I told him I was sorry he had lost, and he smiled and said he really did not feel all that bad, that a friend had explained to him there was nothing he could do - this was a parliamentary election, in which voters took out their anger and frustration on members of the party in charge.
We then had a brief conversation in which we explored what might be happening were this a parliamentary system. He agreed that were we in such a system, there is no doubt that the Democratic caucus in the House would vote Obama out of office - reference was made to the ousting of Maggie Thatcher by John Major. The only problem is there is no replacement in waiting, because while Biden is considered smart and likable, there is now strong ire directed at him specifically on the issue of the estate tax portion of the deal.
This discussion was timely -
Yesterday my Advanced Placement US Government and Politics classes began their study of Congress. Our first day is largely devoted to what I describe as "Congress- the un-Parliament). We explore the differences between the House of Commons and the British system as it is now versus the Congress of the United States. There are strengths and weaknesses of each.
Perhaps it is because of that discussion only a few hours before this conversation - one of a half dozen I had with Members, two others of whom had also been defeated - that it struck me as forcefully as it did.
I have struggled to understand why when Obama still remains more popular than the Republicans, when in general the Congressional Democrats were more popular than the Congressional Republicans, the magnitude of the loss. Yes, I know all about Obama supporters not turning out - younger, lower income, less likely to vote in off-year elections. But that seemed to me an insufficient explanation.
This was a visceral election. It was across the board, taking down some good people who should not have lost - Gov. Strickland of Ohio, for example.
It had little to do with the content of issues - but then, anyone who has paid attention to the work of the likes of Lakoff and Feldman know that framing an election argument on a reasoned approach is likely to fail.
It has to do with something deeper.
Last night I was hearing, from one prominent lobbyist in particular, comparisons with the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Despite people around Obama with supposed good knowledge of the Hill, the sense of what I was hearing is that this administration has totally mismanaged its relationships with the Hill, in a fashion that reminds far too many of the disaster that Congressional relations were under Carter. Remember, the Georgian came in with a top staff with no meaningful DC experience, and which made no effort to reach out to the likes of Speaker Tip O'Neill.
This administration was supposed to be different. After all, Rahm had been in the House leadership. Others had had ranking staff positions. Tom Daschle was supposed to have played a key role, although he was one of a number of early casualties.
And perhaps it is those early casualties that gave something of an indication of the problems to come. It is not unusual for a president to have problems with one high-level position at the beginning of his president. George H. W. Bush did not get John Tower confirmed as SecDef. Bill Clinton had to go to his third pick for Attorney General, and decided he had to pull the nomination of long-time friend Lani Guinier for a high ranking position at Justice. Sometimes the problems are different, such as Supreme Court appointees - both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had to go to a 3rd candidate for one of their appointments.
Going back further, Eisenhower failed to get Adm. Lewis Strauss confirmed as Secretary of Commerce.
I cannot remember an administration with so many personnel problems at its inception. Take the position of Secretary of Commerce, where first Bill Richardson withdrew, then after suggesting himself and being okayed by the White House Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew. While I think Gregg would have been a disaster, a part of me had wanted him to be confirmed for the possible switch of that Senate seat. Still, that was an example of insufficient vetting of both men.
Then there were Geithner's problems, followed by Daschle's problems.
The House plays no official role in confirmation of high level appointees. But a President ignores concerns of the House at his peril - remember, they have oversight along with the Senate, and play a major role in the appropriations process. If key House members really do not like a nominee, it is quite possible that nominee will not be able to function successfully in office.
House Democrats have been pissed at this administration for quite some time. Some of it has come out in public comments, some has remained invisible to the general public, although anyone politically active in the DC area is fully aware.
Here's the irony - some of the House members who lost were the victims of a wave election that like my Congressional acquaintance expressed took the form of a parliamentary election. They took the hard votes, in some cases only to see the Senate not even bring the resulting bill up to a vote. On other issues, they were forced to accept the Senate version even when they had strong disagreement with its final format, health csre reform being perhaps the most notable example. The House Democrats suffered because of the nature of the election, and yet they see themselves as not being responsible for the anger of the voters that their needs were not being met. A large chunk of House anger is naturally directed at the House of Lords Senate. But increasingly it is directed at the President.
Even by late Spring one could pick up grumblings from House Democrats and those close to them that this administration did not give a damn about them, but was simply concerned about itself. Last night I heard the "compromise" being described as Axelrod's conception of how Obama could position himself for 2012, but with seemingly little concern for the impact on House members.
There is palpable anger on two points. 1 - the President had negotiations directly with Republicans without Democratic leaders involved. 2 - The President went to a press conference without first sitting down and going through the details with the Democratic leaders and key committee chairmen who have to agree to getting this through. I was hearing this from people well connected on the House side.
I'm not sure a President less than two years away from a reelection bid wants to have himself compared, not particularly favorably, with Jimmy Carter. That should be something that gets the attention of key figures in the White House.
But let us return to how we started, the notion of a parliamentsry election. We are not a parliamentary system, but the idea that at least some in the House caucus are starting to express things in a way that implies they almost wish they could replace the president right now should scare the living daylights out of the White House. Democrats may be about to be a minority in the House, where the Majority has the power to totally ignore them. But having their enthusiastic support would mean the President would not have to give in as fully to the right-wing of the Republicans to get anything done.
Perhaps my Congressional acquaintance is wrong. Perhaps it was not a parliamentary election, and to view it as such is to misinterpret. Perhaps he should take it personally, although I don't think he is wrong about what happened to him.
We still have the Senate. The loss of the House by itself will not mean bad legislation will become law, unless the President continues to make deals that infuriate not only the progressive base of his party, but also many across the spectrum in the House.
But what if this President is not only losing the progressive base out in the country? What if it is not just that independents are moving away? What if he has a real revolt from Democrats in Congress? Might we be seeing the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence?
I wonder.