In an op-ed in the Washington Post former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, certainly sounding as though he were running for president, criticizes the present group of aspirants:
The president of the United States runs the executive branch, with its hundreds of agencies and 4 million employees. The job’s essential skills primarily involve leadership and management, not policy analysis. The country elects a commander in chief, and yet based on the campaign so far, one might think we are electing a legislator in chief — or a prime minister whose party controls a parliament.
In reality, the next president is likely to face a closely divided Congress. Winning passage of legislation, whatever its details, will require a mix of compromise and cajoling, horse-trading and arm-twisting, favor-granting and trust-building. Yet candidates speak as though the power of the bully pulpit will be sufficient to overcome opponents. It won’t, as recent history makes abundantly clear.
The fact is: A legislative proposal is only as good as the execution plan that accompanies it. And even the best plans must be flexible enough to accommodate necessary changes, to prevent the perfect from being the enemy of the good.
Candidates can promise the whole loaf. But executives need to figure out how to get at least half. Or as my old friend, former New York governor Mario Cuomo, often said: “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.â€
and asks one question:
The presidential aspirants are not short on big ideas. But voters must demand they explain how they intend to move from proposing plans to actually implementing them, including passing them through Congress. Those who dodge the question by speaking of revolution and the bully pulpit aren’t up to the job.
You may have noticed that I have made similar observations myself. Although the present group of Democratic aspirants to the presidency meet the technical legal qualifications for president with the possible exception of Joe Biden and Cory Booker they are only tangentially qualified to be president. They don’t have the basic requirements of experience or attitude. Is not being Trump enough?
That’s a pretty claustrophobic definition of the presidency for me.
“Winning passage of legislation, whatever its details, will require a mix of compromise and cajoling, horse-trading and arm-twisting, favor-granting and trust-building”
Those days are long gone. Neither party is willing to compromise or do much that could be seen to help the other party. When a party is willing to compromise, like when the Democrats were willing to give Trump an immigration bill including a wall, it will be rejected if the compromise is not absolute surrender (the Democrats wanted Dreamers granted amnesty, a step too far for GOP hardliners). Barring crisis or 60% control of the Senate (or doing away with that rule) dont expect much.
Steve
I think this is still the primaries though, where candidates have to please ideologically rigid constituents. The result is a lot of vague policy ideas and purposeful avoidance of substance.
Over time, this will get harder and harder for candidates and once the general election starts, it’s a lot more difficult to play those games.
But who knows. If 2016 taught us anything it’s that the normal rules no longer apply.