by: Jafar Syed, M.A., L.L.B. Researcher, International Affairs

After 12 long years of exile and three humiliating presidential election defeats, Democrats arc at last able to occupy the White House. Consequently, they are now in charge of two branches of the federal government: the executive and the legislative.

Occupying the White House was a long cherished dream of the Democrats that has now come true. And this is why their clapping and cheering has not yet died down. ‘This euphoric atmosphere enveloping the Democrats is understandable. They won a wonderful victory from a Republican president who appeared to be invincible one year before, The same Republican Sampson was eating dust on Noy.2,1992. The two Democratic “bozos, “or “baby boomers” knocked him down. But a big question still begs an answer, Are a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president in the White House guarantees that the ruling party will provide a panacea for all the ills that plague American society? Are the Democrats in a position to solve all the problems that confront the majority of Americans today? And above all, will the Democratic president and Democratic Congress cooperate with each other to push a common agenda?

Unluckily, the history of the White House and Capitol Hill does not provide a clear cut answer to these important questions, On certain occasions in the past, presidents have been unable to push their agendas successfully or sell their programs to their own party in the Congress, On other occasions, one party control over the two branches of the feudal government has proven a positive factor for the president. And sometimes, surprisingly, a president has achieved certified successes without enjoying a majority on Capitol Hill; Different reasons account for each president’s successes and failures.

The Canter administration is regarded as a flop in overall performance and for its relations with its own Democratic Party majority in Congress. In 1976, Demurrals in the House of Representatives numbered 293, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans held only 143 seats. In the Senate, 62 Democrats thumbed their noses at 36 Republicans. But within a month, an unbridgeable gulf separated the Democratic president from the Democratic Congress.

Why? He proposed some unacceptable measures on water projects, His proposals on energy, welfare reform, taxes and health care were coldshouldered by his Own party members, Democratic members of Congress also were: uncomfortable with Carter flooding Capitol Hill with so many proposals. And they grumbled about the president’s uncompromising posture,

The result he could not get what he wanted from Congress.

During Democratic President John F.Kennedy’s term, the Democratic Party also held a majority in both houses of Congress. In the House there were 263 Democratic members, whereas there were 174 Republicans, Sixty four Democrats held Senate seats, as against 36 Republicans. In spite of the majority, Kennedy’s era cannot be labeled monumental in legislative achievement.

The failure has not only befallen Democratic presidents. Republican presidents with a majority could not escape ill fate, either. In 1920 Warren G.Harding had 301 Republicans in the House and 59 in the Senate. In contrast, there were only 131 Democrats in the House and 33 in the Senate. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was also a president with a majority in 1951; There were 221 Republicans in the House and 48 in the Senate, with 203 Democrats in the House and 47 in the Senate. Neither Republican president, Harding or Eisenhower, was able to open a new, successful chapter of legislative history, any more than some of the failed Democratic presidents. In contrast, some presidents carried the day with the support of their party controlling both houses of Congress. One such successful Democratic president was Franklin D. Roosevelt. He set a glaring precedent for other presidents to follow, winning passage of 15 proposals in his first year. Another such Democratic president was Lyndon B. Johnson; He worked well with his party, which controlled both houses, winning support for important legislation.

In addition to these two, some presidents managed to get cooperation from Congress even though their party did not have a majority in Congress. President Ronald Reagan falls into this category. In 1980, the Republicans were a minority party in the House of Representatives. There were 292 Democrats in the House, and only 192 Republicans. Still, Reagan pushed through his economic program his first year in office. He was able to get the “Democrat Republicans” to toe the line for his agenda. There are reasons for each success and failure, and they vary from president to president; personal charisma, tactics, circumstances—political as well as economic—all play a part in appraising a president’s successes or failures. Prevailing economic conditions helped Presidents Roosevelt and Reagan. When both took office the national economy was not in good shape. Congress had to cooperate. President Johnson was an insider. He had been a powerful senator before elevation to the presidency. President Woodrow Wilson broke the ice by appearing before a joint session of Congress. President Bill Clinton is doing everything he can to avoid the pitfalls on which Jimmy Carter stumbled. To develop better understanding, he arranged meetings with Democratic and Republican members of Congress. He summoned a convention to discuss economic issues; He met with automobile industry executives. He attempted to diversify his Cabinet as far as race and gender are concerned. To build a consensus, he is sticking to a centrist position on most issues. Bleak economic conditions in the country also demand concerted efforts from the president and Congress. The two branches cannot point accusatory fingers attach other and cause gridlock. In the Bush era, what the Republican president proposed the Democratic Congress did not endorse. What Congress wanted the president to sign, he vetoed, And the irony was that Congress could not muster enough votes to override presidential vetoes. Out of 46, only one yet was overridden.

So far as the negative factors are concerned, President-elect Clinton is already losing credibility by breaking his promises. People have already heard the clatter of Clinton throwing his promises out the window. He is offering different interpretations of his commitments. He wants to delay some, He is nudging aside the middleclass tax cut, Haitian refugees, diminishing the influence of lobbyists and corporations on the government, taxing foreign corporations, cutting the White House staff and a whole litany of promises. The press is quick to note this and line up against him. So the honeymoon with the media was over at his last news conference. Mr. Clinton also knows that politics is a selfish game. So many aspirants are waiting in the wings. The moment he fails they will jump into the arena to take away the presidency from him.

He also has a host of foreign affairs problem on his watch, from

Somalia to Bosnia. The other factor that is in an embryonic state is how Congress will react to different proposals the president puts on the table. Some may prefer to maintain their independence.

Even when the president was of my own party, always considered myself to be a Senate man. And I felt an independent from the executive branch. I could never picture myself as being any president’s man in the Senate. Senator Robert Byrd Some members of Congress intend to agree with Clinton on some programs, and on others they are determined to differ. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell support Clinton on health care but he is not eye to eye with the president on fuel efficiency. Others will cooperate if the proposed program serves their respective constituents, If he has a major public works bill, we will begin to put in all the projects we like unless says Rep. Robert T. Matsui.

In light of the past precedents, analysis of different reasons and the uncertain role of individual members of Congress, no clear cut answer can be given about President Clinton’s success or failure. The past is inconsistent. But some points made at this moment.

  • A president can depend on his party to a certain extent
  • A president can fail despite being a majority party president.
  • A tussle, and even the existence of hostility, is possible between the president and his party.
  • There are different reasons for the failures and successes of presidents. They may vary from one president to another.
  • For a successful president, the cooperation of Congress is an important factor. Judged from the vantage point of these conclusions, the democrats” euphoria is premature. President Clinton’s failure could oust them again for another 12 years. Probably this time they might also be ousted from Congress as the majority party. They should also remember another point, Campaigning is different from governing. President Bush also campaigned well in 1988, but he could not govern effectively. But a one term presidency is not exclusively the fate of poor George Bush something of which the Democrats are very conscious, having learned the hard way. President Clinton ran the campaign well. But he still has to prove that he can govern effectively.

 

Article extracted from this publication >>  April 23, 1993