I argued earlier that the evidence for an Obama mandate is compelling, especially in comparison to President Bush, who claimed a mandate and political capital after the 2004 election. Some may ask why a mandate matters, or that the margin of victory is irrelevant; I think that there’s a great example that illustrates the importance of a mandate is permitting a President to enact an agenda, and that example is Executive Orders (EOs). EOs are basically directives by the president to the various Executive Branch agencies – such as the various departments headed by the Cabinet – tellingt them what to do and how to do it. These departments include the EPA, Housing, Education, IRS, etc – in other words, government agencies that play a major role in public policy and our daily lives. And none of these require any Congressional oversight, since they are purely Executive Branch functions.
Obama has indicated that he intends to make heavy use of EOs, to undo much of the damage done by President Bush, especially in the enironmental arena and in stem cell research:
President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
John Podesta, Obama’s transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush‘s executive orders
on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during
eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such
orders to move quickly on his own.
a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without
waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president
do that,” Podesta said. “I think that he feels like he has a real
mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”
Presidents long have used executive orders
to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush’s first acts was to
reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The
restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn’t be surprising if Obama did the same.
Executive orders “have the power of law and they can cover just about anything,” Tobias said in a telephone interview.
Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research,
a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that
destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the
research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the
stamp of bipartisanship.
On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.
It’s Obama’s mandate from the people that gives him the confidence to move quickly and decisively on these.
Newsweek is doing a seven-part story on the 2008 campaign which provides all manner of fascinating behind-the-scenes perspectives. The installment on the period of time spanning the debates is notable for the discussion of how the Otherization of Obama proceeded in the background:
At the Clearwater rally, someone in the crowd used a racial epithet
about a black sound man for NBC, and someone else reportedly yelled
“Kill him!” in an ambiguous reference to either Ayers or Obama. By the
end of the week, YouTube was showing film clips of Palin crowds
shouting “Treason!”, “Off with his head!” and “He is a bomb!” At a
McCain-Palin rally in Strongsville, Ohio, a man called Obama a “one-man
terror cell,” and in one unsettling film clip a voter’s young daughter
exclaims about Obama, “You need gloves to touch him!”
the polls showed, had succeeded in rallying the Republican base. But
she, or the simmering anger around her, helped make Obama supporters
out of countless independent voters.
On the weekend
between the second and third debates, Congressman John Lewis–a
civil-rights hero who had been beaten while staging nonviolent protests
during the 1960s–issued a press release accusing McCain and Palin of
“playing with fire” and seeming to compare McCain to former Alabama
governor George Wallace, a segregationist infamous for stirring racial
fears. McCain was stunned. He had devoted a chapter to Lewis in one of
his books, “Why Courage Matters.” He so admired Lewis that he had taken
his children to meet him.
McCain was on his bus, about
to board a plane in Moline, Ill., when he read the remarks on an aide’s
BlackBerry. He was so dumbfounded that he held the plane on the tarmac
while he considered how to respond. Salter, who had penned the chapter
on Lewis, urged McCain to remain more dignified than Lewis had been in
his remarks. But Schmidt called in from headquarters brimming with
outrage. “Sir,” said Schmidt, “he called you a racist. It must be
responded to.” Nicolle Wallace agreed. Salter was not so sure. He was
“very pained” over the incident, Schmidt later recalled about Salter,
but his instinct told him not to get his boss into a name-calling fight
with a martyr of the civil-rights movement. McCain decided to go with
Schmidt and put out a strong statement calling on Obama to “immediately
and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments.”
(Obama left it to a spokesman to blandly state, “Senator Obama does not
believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way
comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies.”)
to several aides, McCain had trouble shaking his sadness over Lewis’s
statement. To the reporters traveling with McCain, the candidate seemed
uncertain, as if he was not quite sure what he had gotten himself into.
In an effort to raise doubts about Obama, McCain had given a stump
speech in which he asked the audience, “Who is Barack Obama?”
At an earlier rally in Albuquerque a man shouted, “A terrorist!” McCain
paused, taken aback. He looked surprised, troubled. But he continued
with the speech. (Salter later said McCain wasn’t sure that he had
A couple of days later, at a rally in
Lakeville, Minn., he seemed to find his bearings. “If you want a fight,
we will fight,” he said. “But we will be respectful. I admire Senator
Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him, and I want–no, no,”
McCain said to loud boos. “I want everyone to be respectful.” In the
question-and-answer period, a middle-aged woman in a bright red shirt
took the mike and said, “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him,
and he’s not, he’s not, he’s a, um–he’s an Arab.”
No, ma’am. No, ma’am. No, ma’am. No, ma’am,” McCain said, taking back
the wireless mike. “He’s a decent family man, a citizen, that I just
happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues; that’s what
this campaign is about. He’s not. Thank you.”
For what it’s worth, the Secret Service reviewed the tapes and it seems that no one actually yelled “kill him” at the Palin rally, but everything else is as described above.
It’s clear that McCain was reluctant to enter the fever swamp, whereas Palin marched right in. I note that it took Lewis’ denunciation for McCain to really wake up to what was going on, and after that point is when the candidate started trying to tamp it down.
The campaign’s internal polls showed that those lower-income swing
voters in industrial states had not forgotten about Wright. In the view
of some of his advisers, McCain had a chance to really hurt Obama by
dredging up those videotapes of his longtime pastor crying “Goddam
America!” But McCain did not want to. He did not want to do anything
that smacked of racism. Some of his aides had quietly wished that the
527s, the independent- expenditure groups, would do the campaign’s
dirty work by running ads about Wright. Yet others worried that the
527s would indeed run lurid ads about Wright–and that McCain would get
the blame. In any case, the big conservative moneymen who might fund
such a smear campaign were lying low, and not just because their
portfolios were suffering in the stock-market dive. They didn’t want to
be called racist, either.
McCain had set firm
boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no
attacking Obama for not serving in the military. McCain balked at an ad
using images of children that suggested that Obama might not protect
them from terrorism; Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft
on crime (no Willie Hortons); and before word even got to McCain,
Schmidt and Salter scuttled a “celebrity” ad of Obama dancing with
talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a
lesbian was deemed too provocative).
However, the damage had been done:
“I’m worried,” Gregory Craig said to a NEWSWEEK reporter in
mid-October. He was concerned that the frenzied atmosphere at the Palin
rallies would encourage someone to do something violent toward Obama.
He was not the only one in the Obama campaign thinking the unthinkable.
The campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing
a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September
and early October. Michelle was shaken by the vituperative crowds and
the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. “Why would they try to make
people hate us?” she asked Valerie Jarrett. Several of Obama’s friends
in the Senate were shocked by the GOP rabble-rousing. Dick Durbin, the
U.S. senator from Illinois who pushed for early Secret Service coverage
for Obama, called Lindsey Graham, who was traveling with McCain.
That damage persists now, after the election.
Incredible. North Carolina is now officially for Obama, bringing his EV total to 364 and total number of states flipped from red to blue to nine. Missouri is the sole remaining state to be counted, with a margin of mere 10,000 votes in McCain’s advantage so far. If MO also flips blue then that will push Obama to 375.
I mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating – despite desperate attempts by Republicans to spin/argue that America is a “center-right” nation, Obama’s margin of victory is truly a mandate for change. Recall that after winning re-election in 2004, President Bush laid claim to a mandate and “political capital”, on the strength of his 35 EV and 3 million voter margin over John Kerry. For comparison, including NC and excluding MO, Obama has a 201 EV and 7.7 million voter margin over McCain. Obama earned 2.5 million more votes than Bush did in 2004; whereas McCain earned 2.2 million fewer votes than Kerry. Percentage-wise, Bush’s margin over Kerry was 3% whereas Obama’s margin over McCain was 7%. By every possible metric, therefore, Obama’s victory was comprehensive and staggering.
Incidentally, Reagan and Nixon earned more EVs than Obama did in their respective victories, but far far fewer votes: Reagan earned 44 million votes in 1980 and Nixon earned 47 million in 1972, compared to Obama’s 64.5 million. In terms of voter turnout, 2008 saw 64.1% of voters going to the polls, compared to 52.6% in 1980 and 55.2% in 1972. Unlike Republicans, Democrats have seen their share of the vote increase steadily with every election in recent history.
Of course, Reagan and Nixon had EV totals far higher, but that reflects the discrete apportionment of the Electoral College. The only valid metric for determining a mandate is the popular vote, since otherwise you’d have to argue that the vote of one Montanan equals the vote of 100 Californians in influence.
As John McCain said in his concession speech, Americans spoke clearly on Election Night, and gave Obama a clear and overwhelming mandate for change. Obama needs to seize the genuine political capital he’s been loaned by the American people and make sure not to squander it. After all, America is clearly a center-left nation.
Christof at Intermodality blog points out that Obama is the first Urban president in modern times, whose home is within walking distance of public transport:
Obama lives only four miles from the center of the third
largest city of the United States, and his political roots are
unquestionably urban. That should not be remarkable in a country where
80% of the population lives in metropolitan areas. But our politics has
valued “small town values” and as a result the issues of cities —
traffic congestion, for example — have not been a major part of the
national dialog. But we can hope that’s changing. Many of the places
that helped swing this election — the Philadelphia suburbs, Northern
Virginia, Denver — are places that have rail transit, are building rail
transit, or are demanding rail transit. Will that shape the policy
debates to come?
It should be noted that Joe Biden has been a proponent of – and daily
commuter on – Amtrak for decades. I think at bare minimum, grand designs like the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative are suddenly on the table, and voters in California already approved Proposition 1A, a high speed rail initiative between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The argument for rail is also part of the energy independence argument, as rail is more fuel-efficient per passenger than flying, especially for shorter distances.
On a more prosaic level, instead of hearing about President Bush clearing brush from his Crawford ranch, we are going to be hearing about President Obama returning home to the Chicago suburbs. As a result, there’s going to be enormous media scrutiny on Obama at “home”, far beyond what Bush dealt with, because of the increased accessibility. In that sense even Obama’s vacations will be working ones, because his largest constituencies are right outside his front door, and more immediate in his face than they are from behind the walled compound at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or out on some country ranch.
Recall that President Clinton’s offices are in Harlem, NYC – that location has given Clinton a more direct, tangible connection with the issues he fights for in the abstract using his Clinton Global Initiative. The same dynamic of engagement will apply to Obama. It’s important for a President to get outside the Beltway, but equally important they don’t go so far away that they are removed from everything else.