Presidents tend to set the agenda for their parties. Most of the party’s members of Congress tend to go along.
When Barack Obama first took the oath of office in January 2009, his fellow Democrats, with their large majorities in Congress, hurried to pass his key legislation.
The $787 billion stimulus package was passed in February. In June, the House passed cap-and-trade legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions. ObamaCare took longer, but in March 2010, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Obama rallied the House to pass it.
The large majority of Democrats voted for all three. Some paid a political price when Democrats lost 63 House seats in November 2010. But almost all Democrats continued to support Obama’s positions on major issues.
Now, suddenly, we are seeing signs of Democratic discontent. In the past two weeks, congressional Democrats have stymied two important presidential initiatives.
After Obama called for Congress to authorize the use of military force in Syria, Democrats didn’t line up in large numbers in support. Public whip counts showed some Democrats opposed and many Senate Democrats and most House Democrats as uncommitted.
Perhaps Democrats’ unwillingness to accept this agenda item may have undermined the credibility of any presidential threat to use force in Syria or elsewhere.
Democrats also prevented Obama from nominating the person he evidently wanted for one of the most important jobs a president can fill, chairman of the Federal Reserve.
On TV in June, Obama signaled that current Fed chief Ben Bernanke would not be renominated. When attacks were launched on his former economic counselor and Clinton Treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, Obama responded with angry defenses. His body language suggested Summers was his choice.
Summers might have been confirmable in July. But there was a crescendo of opposition in left-wing blogs. Many on the feminist left endorsed ÂJanet Yellen, now Fed vice chairman and (like Summers) an economist of genuine intellectual heft.
Last week, four of the 14 Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee came out against Summers. That meant that confirmation would require the other 10 Democrats and at least a few of the 10 Republicans. On Sunday, Summers withdrew — or was persuaded to withdraw — from consideration.
One reason for Democrats’ discontent with Obama is that he doesn’t schmooze with them. As Tip O’Neill used to say, people like to be asked. Obama doesn’t like to ask.
Much more important, many Democrats have principled reasons for opposing Obama on National Security Agency wiretapping, Syria and Summers. Critics of the Bush War on Terror have reason to oppose Obama on NSA and Syria. Economic populists have reason to block a Fed chairman with recent Wall Street ties who’s associated with moderate Clinton policies.
The danger is that Obama may lose his party base, as Bush did after Katrina and the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. In which case, his job-approval could plummet below the current 44 percent, as Bush’s did.
A president with low approval still has executive powers. But he no longer sets the agenda for his party.