Historical overview

                When assessing the relationship between President Obama and Capitol Hill, it can at times be beneficial to consider the broader historical context. If one were to identify a comparable era, then the Truman administration of the late-1940s springs readily to mind. Expressing a sense of frustration with the obstructionism of the GOP, Truman famously described the eightieth congressional session (1947-49) as the “do-nothing Congress.” He could do little to persuade Congress to accept key elements of his agenda, particularly in the field of domestic policy. Obama has also faced intransigence and hostility from congressional Republicans. This obstructionism reflects the ideological fervor of the Tea party, and the failure of moderates within the GOP to halt the rightward drift within the party.

                Another comparable era is the partisan bickering that characterized the relationship between the Republican presidents of Nixon/Ford and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Relations between the two parties were particularly antagonistic at this time. The ‘imperial presidency’ had come crashing to a halt in the quagmire of Vietnam and the self-inflicted wound of Watergate. Congress was utterly determined to wrestle power back from the executive branch, even in the field of foreign policy where the Head of State traditionally operates with considerable scope. Democrats within Congress were also smarting at the end of the New Deal coalition, fearing that Richard Milhous Nixon marked the shape of things to come in terms of Republican hegemony. By the middle of that difficult decade, Ford claimed with good reason that the President was now imperiled rather than imperial. Even Carter (who was at least from the same party as most members of Congress) faced major problems with Congress over energy policy and the economy.

                Obama cannot govern in the same manner of say Ronald Reagan because he lacks the skills of the ‘great communicator,’ nor does he have many liberal Republicans to appeal to. That said; even Reagan faced opposition from the Democrat-controlled Congress under the formidable House Speaker Tip O’Neill. Obama might more accurately be compared to Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat who also faced stiff opposition from Republicans within Congress. Relations between Clinton and the House Speaker Newt Gingrich were generally poor. Some claim that the government shutdown of the mid-1990s was actually a result of Gingrich being snubbed on a trip back on Air Force One. Whether one chooses to believe this or not, it certainly captures the bad feeling of the time.

                In terms of his public image, Obama has at least avoided some of the mistakes made by Clinton. For instance, the Lincoln bedroom is no longer available to donors and Obama has been reluctant to use his powers of pardon wealthy donors in a manner that so discredited Clinton. Obama has also avoided the personal indiscretions that ultimately harmed the Clinton presidency; in that valuable time was wasted fighting a number of accusations made against the forty-second President. Finally, Obama managed to make better use of his brief period of unified government than Clinton ever did. There is no better contrast than the issue of universal health care. To put it bluntly, Obama succeeded where Clinton failed. Obama presented a much clearer plan than Clinton and also managed to secure support from reluctant members of his own party via the use of pork (such as the Cornhusker kickback given to Senator Ben Nelson).

                It is a fairly safe assumption that Obama must envy the situation that faced George W. Bush during the first six years of his presidency. Bush junior had considerable support from Republicans within Congress, thereby enabling him to push through his blend of military Keynesianism and compassionate conservatism. This was more noticeable in the field of foreign policy, where a largely acquiescent Congress endorsed various measures taken in regards to the war against terror. Remarkably, George W. Bush became the first President since the Civil War not to issue a veto during his first term. However, the comparison between Obama and Bush remains pertinent here if one were to consider the last two years of his time in office. 

The relationship between the President and those on the Hill remains a difficult one. This is an important point to recognize in order to properly assess the presidency of Barack Obama. Thus far, Obama’s record might be rated comparatively well. His legislative success rate is high, he has secured his legacy via Obamacare and he certainly came off best in the budget stand-off with House Republicans. However, it will inevitably take time before one can properly assess the Obama administration in terms of its dealings with Capitol Hill. The level of appreciation or criticism of Barack Obama requires a proper detached level of historical hindsight.