Presidencies, big and small

Greg Sargent keeps asking, OK, tough guys, if you're tired of Obama's wuss-laden rhetoric of concilation and compromise, what, exactly, do you propose he do instead?  What can the guy do in the face of Republican resistance and defiance? He is, after all, only one man (albeit the most powerful man in the world). The Congress could take the lead on issues like enacting middle class tax cuts and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so why is he alone expected to lead on these issues?  (Uh, because he's the leader of the free world?) Whaddaya think the guy is, Superman?

Turns out, yes, he is Superman, if only he'd flick the kryptonite:

First, go full throttle where he can on his own -- executive orders, rulemaking powers, and so forth. And second, lay down a clear vision and agenda in the full expectation that Republicans will oppose it, and use the presidential bully pulpit to wage a massive communications offensive hammering them relentlessly for their opposition and intransigence.

Armando at Talk Left has repeatedly challenged the insistence among progressives that Obama can't be expected on his own to move mountains and part seas, although I do vaguely remember promises of that sort from '08.  But, to diminish the power of the presidency is not only short-sighted, but foolhardy and self-flagellating, like monks batting themselves with planks.  As Armando wrote in a post titled "Obama's still big, it's the presidency that got small":

...Folks are again trotting out the poor Obama, "if only people had President Obama's back" line. Earlier this week, it was about Obama's powerlessness regarding the Bush tax cuts. Today, Balloon Juice argues the Obama Administration can't try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a federal court in New York...

These "defenses" of Obama are not helpful, to the discourse or to Obama. As I previously wrote:

...But suppose it is true [--] Then why should we care much if he is reelected? Shouldn't we then just focus all our attention on the Congress?

Of course, it is not true. In fact, the very reason many of these same Obama apologists hated the bad Clinton Triangulation so much is it is not true. Bill Clinton was able to "triangulate" because the Presidency is in fact the most powerful political office. Stupid to act as if the Presidency became small when Obama became President.

It's also not historically accurate.  As Eugene Robinson says:

We don't define periods in American history by who held the majority in Congress. It was the Reagan Era, not the Tip O'Neill Era - just as we're now living in the Obama Era, no matter what John Boehner or Mitch McConnell might hope. 

Or what the Obama apologia-sphere may tell itself.

There are many levers of power Obama can pull even without Congress' help, says Robinson

 ,,,Obama has the power to help jump-start the real estate market by issuing orders that could speed the untangling of the foreclosure mess - and also begin to move the vast inventory of foreclosed properties that weighs so heavily on home prices.

He can shape the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the implementation of health-care reform in ways that will produce the quickest and greatest benefits for working families... This wouldn't just be good policy, it would be good politics as well. Demonizing "Obamacare" and financial reform as abstract concepts worked well for the Republicans in the midterm campaign, but it won't be a viable strategy if people see - and like - the concrete results.

Bush didn't act like his powers were limited, by any means, and progressives didn't run around with their hair ablaze and eyes agape because Bush didn't pour every drop of power from his waterboarding jug. And don't tell me there wasn't a small, still part of yourself that didn't admire him for it, not the policies or practices or full-on thuggery, but his day to day ability to get his way -- or at least look like he did.  As Armando says:

I always return to the George W. Bush example in 2001, where Bush LOST the popular vote, faced a 50-50 Senate and still got his agenda through the Congress. That the agenda was disastrous is not the point. The point is what people like Yglesias are saying is that in terms of dealing with Congress, George W. Bush was much more effective than Barack Obama can possibly be. And that is just sad.

At this point, excusing Obama's possible failures on health care reform seems the most important goal for many. If that is the new focus of progressive blogging, that speaks volumes about Obama . . . and progressive bloggers.

 Being bold and wrong is nothing to aspire to. We lived through eight years of that.  The higher power progressives seek pairs good policy with audacity, something we thought we were getting in Obama, but so far has been just a very good sales job.