The relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill

The relative success of the President rests to a significant extent upon the association between Congress and the White House. This in turn is shaped by a number of factors, the most important of which is the level of ideological polarization between the two main parties. Since the collapse of the New Deal, the Democrats have become more liberal and the Republicans have become more conservative. As a consequence, the President is perceived of in partisan terms rather than as a neutral Head of State. It is worth noting here that Obama has been the most polarizing President since records began, although this may well reflect the intransigence of conservative Republicans as opposed to Obama's supposedly hardline liberal agenda.

                The stage of the electoral cycle must also be considered. It is a truism of American politics that the authority of the President diminishes over time. During the first one hundred days, the President can effectively shape the tone and character of his first term. He may even benefit from the coattails effect, as in the case of Reagan in 1980 or Obama in 2008. Over time however, the gap between results and initial promises tends to increase. To quote Obama, the President inevitably shifts from “yes we can” to “yes we can, but!” Moreover, the party of the President nearly always loses seats during mid-term elections. By the latter stages of the second-term, the President may well become something of a lame-duck figure (as was the case with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush). In some cases, he may even be forced to govern via the veto pen. After the 2014 mid-terms, Obama now faces a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

                Related to the above point is the state of the parties within the legislative branch. It is an undeniable observation about American politics that the President has a greater ability to shape the political agenda when his party is in control of both chambers. Take the case of Barack Obama. His legislative success rate during the first two years of his presidency was impressive by historical standards. However, issues such as the budget and the ACA have been particularly acrimonious since the GOP gained control of the lower chamber in the 2010 mid-terms.

The President’s approval ratings will also affect the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill. As a general rule of thumb, Congress is more likely to defy the President at a time when he is unpopular with the American people. In contrast, a popular President usually has a greater capacity to persuade members of Congress. For example, George W. Bush managed to implement a number of anti-terrorism policies at a time when his approval ratings soared in the aftermath of 9/11. Such measures would have almost certainly been resisted by Congress under different circumstances, particularly if the Democrats had been the dominant party in Congress.

                The final factor to consider is the impact of events. The relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill is subject to the constant whirligig of events. One of the golden rules of Washingtonian politics is that the President should never let a crisis go to waste. Those who can turn a crisis into an opportunity tend to enhance or at least maintain their grip on power, but those who cannot seem to invite yet more mishaps upon their presidency. During times of national crisis, the President may well gain added support from members of both parties on the Hill. This is particularly notable during a time in which the nation is under threat from unpredictable enemy forces. Congressional members may well be inclined to support the White House in order to assuage the concerns of their constituents. At the very least, they would not wish to be thought of as unpatriotic when the nation is vulnerable to attack. Those Presidents who have gone down in history as embattled figures (such as Nixon and Carter) have often been defeated by a crisis. Nixon for instance never really recovered from the Watergate scandal whilst Carter was fatally discredited by the Iranian hostage crisis. Even now, the Nixon presidency is tainted by the events of Watergate whereas the very words ‘Jimmy Carter’ are a by-word for presidential failure. It is also worth noting that forging relations with members on the Hill can become more complex during a time when the nation feels relatively safe from external threat (as was the case under Clinton during the 1990s).

                Before we leave this section, it must be noted that none of the factors mentioned above necessarily spells disaster for any administration, provided the President can persuade others to adopt a particular course of action. He can of course engage in pork-barrel politics, or exploit his personal links with prominent members of Congress. Another key factor is the ability of the President to wrong-foot their opponents. For instance, during the budget stand-off in October 2013 President Obama managed to portray fiscal conservatives in the GOP in a negative light. If one were to take a cynical view, the President had an incentive to play hard-ball because it made the GOP appear beholden to a right-wing minority. It also exposed divisions between the TP’ers and more moderate, establishment figures within the Republican Party.