Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-30-2009, 11:56 PM  
Chiefshrink Chiefshrink is offline
MVP
 
Chiefshrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: donkey land
Casino cash: $70991
The Constitution gets in the way of Obama's agenda

Mr. Policy Hits a Wall

By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 24, 2009

A new publication came across my desk this week containing an essay that offers as good an insight into President Obama's approach to government as anything I have read -- and is particularly useful in understanding the struggle over health-care reform.

The publication is called National Affairs, and its advisory board is made up of noted conservative academics from James W. Ceaser to James Q. Wilson. The article that caught my eye, "Obama and the Policy Approach," was written by William Schambra, director of the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.

Schambra, like many others, was struck by the "sheer ambition" of Obama's legislative agenda and by his penchant for centralizing authority under a strong White House staff replete with many issue "czars."


Schambra sees this as evidence that "Obama is emphatically a 'policy approach' president. For him, governing means not just addressing discrete challenges as they arise, but formulating comprehensive policies aimed at giving large social systems -- and indeed society itself -- more rational and coherent forms and functions. In this view, the long-term, systemic problems of health care, education, and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole."

He traces the roots of this approach to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when rapid social and economic change created a politics dominated by interest-group struggles. The progressives believed that the cure lay in applying the new wisdom of the social sciences to the art of government, an approach in which facts would heal the clash of ideologies and narrow constituencies.

Obama -- a highly intelligent product of elite universities -- is far from the first Democratic president to subscribe to this approach. Jimmy Carter, and especially Bill Clinton, attempted to govern this way. But Obama has made it even more explicit, regularly proclaiming his determination to rely on rational analysis, rather than narrow decisions, on everything from missile defense to Afghanistan -- and all the big issues at home.

"In one policy area after another," Schambra writes, "from transportation to science, urban policy to auto policy, Obama's formulation is virtually identical: Selfishness or ideological rigidity has led us to look at the problem in isolated pieces . . . we must put aside parochialism to take the long systemic view; and when we finally formulate a uniform national policy supported by empirical and objective data rather than shallow, insular opinion, we will arrive at solutions that are not only more effective but less costly as well. This is the mantra of the policy presidency."

Historically, that approach has not worked. The progressives failed to gain more than brief ascendancy, and the Carter and Clinton presidencies were marked by striking policy failures. The reason, Schambra says, is that this highly rational, comprehensive approach fits uncomfortably with the Constitution, which apportions power among so many different players, most of whom are far more concerned with the particulars of policy than its overall coherence.

The energy bill that went into the House was a reasonably coherent set of trade-offs that would reduce carbon emissions and help the atmosphere. When it came out, it was a grab bag of subsidies and payoffs to various industries and groups. Now it is stymied by similar forces in the Senate.

Schambra's essay anticipated exactly what is happening on health care. Obama, budget director Peter Orszag and health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle grasp the intricacies of the health-care system as well as any three humans, and they could write a law to make it far more efficient.

But now it is in the hands of legislators and lobbyists who care much less about the rationality of the system than they do about the way the bill will affect their particular part of it. Everyone has a parochial agenda. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example, wants to be sure a new cancer treatment center in Nevada has favored status.

Democracy and representative government are a lot messier than the progressives and their heirs, including Obama, want to admit. No wonder they are so often frustrated.

davidbroder@washpost.com
Posts: 11,925
Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Chiefshrink is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 05:55 AM   #2
***SPRAYER ***SPRAYER is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Autosodomy NJ
Casino cash: $14414
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsshrink View Post
Schambra, like many others, was struck by the "sheer ambition" of Obama's legislative agenda and by his penchant for centralizing authority under a strong White House staff replete with many issue "czars."
That's exactly what the skinny, greasy piece of crap is doing.
Posts: 9,582
***SPRAYER is a favorite in the douche of the year contest.***SPRAYER is a favorite in the douche of the year contest.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 10:02 AM   #3
Garcia Bronco Garcia Bronco is offline
No Keys, No Problem
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver
Casino cash: $77872
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsshrink View Post
Mr. Policy Hits a Wall

By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 24, 2009

A new publication came across my desk this week containing an essay that offers as good an insight into President Obama's approach to government as anything I have read -- and is particularly useful in understanding the struggle over health-care reform.

The publication is called National Affairs, and its advisory board is made up of noted conservative academics from James W. Ceaser to James Q. Wilson. The article that caught my eye, "Obama and the Policy Approach," was written by William Schambra, director of the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.

Schambra, like many others, was struck by the "sheer ambition" of Obama's legislative agenda and by his penchant for centralizing authority under a strong White House staff replete with many issue "czars."


Schambra sees this as evidence that "Obama is emphatically a 'policy approach' president. For him, governing means not just addressing discrete challenges as they arise, but formulating comprehensive policies aimed at giving large social systems -- and indeed society itself -- more rational and coherent forms and functions. In this view, the long-term, systemic problems of health care, education, and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole."

He traces the roots of this approach to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when rapid social and economic change created a politics dominated by interest-group struggles. The progressives believed that the cure lay in applying the new wisdom of the social sciences to the art of government, an approach in which facts would heal the clash of ideologies and narrow constituencies.

Obama -- a highly intelligent product of elite universities -- is far from the first Democratic president to subscribe to this approach. Jimmy Carter, and especially Bill Clinton, attempted to govern this way. But Obama has made it even more explicit, regularly proclaiming his determination to rely on rational analysis, rather than narrow decisions, on everything from missile defense to Afghanistan -- and all the big issues at home.

"In one policy area after another," Schambra writes, "from transportation to science, urban policy to auto policy, Obama's formulation is virtually identical: Selfishness or ideological rigidity has led us to look at the problem in isolated pieces . . . we must put aside parochialism to take the long systemic view; and when we finally formulate a uniform national policy supported by empirical and objective data rather than shallow, insular opinion, we will arrive at solutions that are not only more effective but less costly as well. This is the mantra of the policy presidency."

Historically, that approach has not worked. The progressives failed to gain more than brief ascendancy, and the Carter and Clinton presidencies were marked by striking policy failures. The reason, Schambra says, is that this highly rational, comprehensive approach fits uncomfortably with the Constitution, which apportions power among so many different players, most of whom are far more concerned with the particulars of policy than its overall coherence.

The energy bill that went into the House was a reasonably coherent set of trade-offs that would reduce carbon emissions and help the atmosphere. When it came out, it was a grab bag of subsidies and payoffs to various industries and groups. Now it is stymied by similar forces in the Senate.

Schambra's essay anticipated exactly what is happening on health care. Obama, budget director Peter Orszag and health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle grasp the intricacies of the health-care system as well as any three humans, and they could write a law to make it far more efficient.

But now it is in the hands of legislators and lobbyists who care much less about the rationality of the system than they do about the way the bill will affect their particular part of it. Everyone has a parochial agenda. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example, wants to be sure a new cancer treatment center in Nevada has favored status.

Democracy and representative government are a lot messier than the progressives and their heirs, including Obama, want to admit. No wonder they are so often frustrated.

davidbroder@washpost.com
That's a lot of words to say everyone has self-interests. This is nothing new. Madison addresses it in Federalist Paper 10. Now if it was a problem in Madison's time. And Cicero's time. What makes anybody think it's going to change anytime soon?
Posts: 22,089
Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 10:11 AM   #4
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $81499
Interesting title for an article that doesn't allege any Constitutional violations.
__________________
Posts: 32,529
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 10:14 AM   #5
Garcia Bronco Garcia Bronco is offline
No Keys, No Problem
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver
Casino cash: $77872
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Interesting title for an article that doesn't allege any Constitutional violations.

Ahh...that would be your perception of what the title meant. It's not what it meant at all.
Posts: 22,089
Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 10:35 AM   #6
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $81499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
Ahh...that would be your perception of what the title meant. It's not what it meant at all.
Perhaps you could tell me how I am mistaken.
__________________
Posts: 32,529
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 10:47 AM   #7
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $212543
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Perhaps you could tell me how I am mistaken.
it appears to me that GB is right. The OP and the thread title isn't that what Obama wants to do is unconstitutional, but rather the diffusing of power that is at the heart of the Constitution is an impediment to the centralized problem-solving approach that Obama tries to use. Further, the self-interests of the many parties given political voice and power by the Constitution frustrates the efforts of Obama to try to engage in rational and comprehensive problem solving.

I note that I do not express any opinion on the OP opinion.
Posts: 32,931
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 10:50 AM   #8
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $259950
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Interesting title for an article that doesn't allege any Constitutional violations.
You're a Constitutional violation
__________________
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."

Stewie Griffin
Posts: 64,697
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 11:44 AM   #9
Garcia Bronco Garcia Bronco is offline
No Keys, No Problem
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver
Casino cash: $77872
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Perhaps you could tell me how I am mistaken.
It's talking about the design of our Government under the Constitution. It makes the point that ourdesign doesn't allow for whole sale change. I would disagree and say the Constitution isn't the problem as much as it's human nature. Specifically self-interests.
Posts: 22,089
Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.Garcia Bronco Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 01:01 PM   #10
StcChief StcChief is offline
Playing for #1 Draft Pick
 
StcChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Just West of Lambs land
Casino cash: $1024715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
It's talking about the design of our Government under the Constitution. It makes the point that ourdesign doesn't allow for whole sale change. I would disagree and say the Constitution isn't the problem as much as it's human nature. Specifically self-interests.
always has been. damn the greater good. what's in it for me.
Posts: 25,902
StcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutStcChief is the dumbass Milkman is always talking about
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.