« The Games Will Come | Main | Pretending at Courage »
February 10, 2006
The Impossible Job
Bob J Young at The Centrist Coalition is disappointed in President Bush, and musing about whether Al Gore would have been better after all. Here's a hint: no. Actually, that's not fair, the real question to ask is how would Gore have been better and how would he have been worse, and where would it not matter? The election of 2000 wasn't really about anything in particular, because the real differences between Bush and Gore were those of emphasis and focus, not basic policy: both stood for increasing statism and numerous small programs to give voters what they want and (at least it so appeared at the time) relatively sane and inoffensive foreign policies. Gore was hurt by being part of a corrupt administration, and likely by actually being corrupt. Bush was hurt by his inexperience in national affairs. I think that it's the essential sameness of the two that made the 2000 election so bitter: with no differentiators of great note, the only way to tell the players apart was by the depth and bitterness of their vitriol.
But the truth is, when the crisis comes (as it has for every American President since the start of the Great Depression (and well over half of the Presidents before then), we're stuck with the guy we elected, and we can, beforehand, only tell in outline how he will perform, because the crisis changes him. Would Gore have stood up and become an aggressive and efficient warrior while efficiently managing the government at home? Maybe, and maybe not: there is no way to know. But there is one absolute guarantee: Gore would have failed somewhere, and badly. That is inevitable, and it has nothing to do with Gore and everything to do with being human. (In actuality, Gore seems to be a control freak, which oddly enough means that he would be likely to fail very badly in many areas, as did Clinton and Carter; it also means that he would probably have very notable successes in other areas, as did Clinton, if he could have been a good enough politician not to get rolled by Congress all the time.)
The reason that Presidents — all Presidents — are guaranteed to fail somewhere is that the Presidency is simply too big of a job for any human to do well. Consider what we expect of our President:
- Deter any foreign enemy from attacking the US or its allies; prevent any attacks not deterred; punish any attacks not prevented. Only 100% success is acceptable. And in doing this job, do not hurt the feelings of our friends or our enemies, and do not attack countries unless every other nation in the world, possibly excluding the one being attacked, concurs. If you do go to war the only possible success is if all of our goals are achieved without any deaths of our troops, enemy troops, or innocent bystanders. And solve the Middle East's problems, and Africa's problems, and SE Asia's problems, and handle perfectly any crisis that arises in foreign affairs. Be neither too multilateral nor too unilateral. Do all of this while infringing on absolutely no rights of any American or foreigner.
- Ensure that the economy is continually growing in every sector, that every person has a job that pays above average and that no person in America goes without food, clothing, good housing, a car, a television, a telephone, internet access, cable and the other basic necessities of life. Make sure that inflation and interest rates stay low while the economy is growing rapidly in every sector and is at full employment.
- Be completely cognizant of every trade deal and dispute, every interstate issue, every "issue of the day", every policy ever tried or not tried by the government, every decision by every Federal court and any controversial decisions by any State courts and every immigration or asylum case.
- Make sure that government never falls behind on technology in any area, but do this without spending more money. Oh, and raise government workers' salaries. And for the sake of all that is holy do not ever let any government employee have any reason to complain that he didn't have the exact equipment or training he needed to do some critical job even if it had only been developed three weeks prior to his complaint.
- Know and understand every detail of every regulation and law and be prepared to discuss at length, say, the levels of arsenic in test wells in N. Carolina and how you will fix this problem.
- Have solutions ready to hand for poverty, transportation, energy, health care, pollution and other environmental matters, resource utilization and private companies' or organizations' policies that strike some as bad. Do this while not increasing taxes or spending overall and while respecting individual and States' rights and not interfering in the economy any more than is already done.
- Do all of this without raising taxes for the middle class, but being sure to raise taxes on the "rich", and while balancing the budget and cutting spending.
- Be responsible for the entire 4 million or so (!!!) Federal government workers, and make sure that they all are in lock step with your policies and are absolutely competent even though you only control about 1000 officers of government, if that. Know how to do all of their jobs, and all of the details of what they are doing.
- Do all of this while half the country and half of Congress vilifies you constantly and seeks to undermine every policy or decision you make.
Believe it or not, I've understated the problem, because there's a lot more to the job than that, and I did not account for bad faith or for government employees or departments that decide to sabotage you because they disagree with your policies. We have simply created a job that no human can do.
I don't think that it's possible to fix the expectations problem: it's simply the case that that much education doesn't exist, and education doesn't always take. Some people will want the government to solve every problem no matter the consequences. Some people will want the government to take no action on any problems no matter the consequences. In any event, it is simply going to be true that every President will fail badly at many things, and will be incompetent or incapable of handling at least a fair amount of what we expect him to handle. Perfect expertise and control on so many issues is simply not possible.
But there are ways that we can make it better. For example, we can separate regulation from enforcement, putting the regulators under the control of Congress. Why should the executive be making regulations in the first place: that's a legislative responsibility. We could make departments of staffers who are experts on various issues and they could write the regulations and Congress could debate them and have hearings and either enact them or not. This would likely have a couple of good side effects, including decreased need for lobbyists to help write bills (because of lack of Congressional subject matter expertise), a decreased number of Federal employees (because of reduced duplication in fact finding) and fewer actual regulations (Congress can only pass bills at a certain rate).
The remaining executive staff, whose job it is to carry out the laws and enforce the regulations, could then be moved away from the civil service protections and back to serving at the will of the President, because no longer would a President have an incentive to fire people for formulating regulations that he disagrees with. The increased responsiveness to Presidential directives would be a positive win, and it would become reasonable to hold people accountable, and to hold the President accountable for his management of Federal employees.
A number of departments would disappear altogether from the executive branch. The Department of Education, for example, would likely be so small that it would fold into another department (as it was before, IIRC, Jimmy Carter's presidency). Transportation, Homeland Security, Defense, State, Treasury, the intelligence agencies and Interior would remain large, but I think the others (unless I'm forgetting a couple) would shrink dramatically.
And a lot of the Federal departments, too, could be spun off into semi-private agencies like the Post Office or the Federal Reserve. NASA and the FAA would be good examples of where this could work well.
Heck, if we took away from the President the responsibility for creating the budget, putting that back in Congress where it belongs, a large number of the Title X military people (Pentagon bureaucrats) and a huge percentage of the other departments would become either Congressional employees or, more likely, mostly superfluous.
In any case, the reality is that we can shrink the requirements of the President's job, to the point where a human — well, some humans anyway — could actually do the job well. And that would be a good thing all around. Which of course means it is unlikely to happen.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/840
Comments
I like this idea. I've always disliked the way that Congress has shirked its responsibility for setting policy by passing power for rule-making to the same federal agencies that enforce the rules. It's too much power in unelected (and often unaccountable) hands. Further, it means that people are being punished for breaking rules that were not directly enacted by our democratically elected lawmakers. No one should ever face any kind of criminal punishment or fine based on any rule not directly enacted by Congress.
I also like the idea that it would slow the bastards down...
Posted by: Aubrey Turner ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 10, 2006 8:44 PM
I think that the biggest problem with "expectations" is that the president talks to the citizenry too much. Stay behind the reasons, refuse to answer questions about trivial matters, and the people will start complaining to the Congress, who will finally have to do something.
Of course, the president would only be a 1-termer...
Posted by: queuno at February 10, 2006 9:09 PM
"Bob J Young at The Centrist Coalition is disappointed in President Bush, and musing about whether Al Gore would have been better after all. Here's a hint: no."
Jeff,
Just thought I would let you know that you spent in excess of 1500 words not justifying your answer of why Gore would not have made a better president then Bush.
However, from what I can tell you did make the case that any man not elected president would not be a better president then a man who was elected president.
If 1500 words helps you feel better about your vote - and all that has transpired because of that vote - then I guess it is a small price to pay to ease one's mind. Unfortunately there are many more years between now and 2008 and I am afraid that you will need to pen many more thousands of words to avoid the reality that almost any man would have been a better president.
Posted by: evolvedreason at February 13, 2006 10:02 AM
What is funny about that is that I did not vote for Bush in 2000. I voted third party (Libertarian).
Moreover, the point I was trying to make is that the job is too big for any person, and anyone that is elected, selected, drafted, chosen or in any other way made President will be a failure in some ways and hopefully a success in others.
As such, I'll refuse at this point to rise to your partisan baiting.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at February 13, 2006 10:10 AM
"Gore was hurt by being part of a corrupt administration, and likely by actually being corrupt."
Jeff,
You can claim the non-partisan high ground all you want but declarations like those above say otherwise. This subjective conjecture is as partisan and baiting as it gets. The wormy goo left over after this hook had been baited is obvious for all but the most cynically partisan to see.
It is easily seen, whether he got your vote or not, that this post by you - especially considering the lead in - is a feel good pill for those who have supported Bush. I have frequented this blog long enough to know the side of the political seesaw (supporter or opposition) that those who contribute to it sit on - and the contributors of this blog are definitely not in opposition. And this post by you, as much as you would have me believe otherwise is definitely addressed to those who support the current administration and its actions. A defense based on the simplistic argument that all presidents are good and bad but no president can really be better. After expelling this trite bit of reasoning I should think that you would be happy to have it described as partisan - because without this justification all we are left with is:
"the point I was trying to make is that the job is too big for any person, and anyone that is elected, selected, drafted, chosen or in any other way made President will be a failure in some ways and hopefully a success in others."
which is to say nothing at all.
By the way, in the face of the challenges to American liberty that are occurring within this administration you would think that a libertarian would be spending the majority of his words in opposition. If the current assault on the fourth amendment doesn't motivate a libertarian into opposition then nothing will.
Posted by: evolvedreason at February 13, 2006 1:39 PM
That wasn't partisan baiting on my part; it was an evaluation of evidence. Gore was perceived, and by more people than myself, as being both corrupt and tainted by Clinton's corruption. Pointing that out is neither a partisan activity nor trying to claim some kind of moral high ground, but a statement of fact.
You seem to have missed the point, though, in a much more profound way. My point is that so long as the job is impossible to do because of structural problems (the President is expected both to enforce the laws and to create regulations, and even to propose the budget, and that's just too much for one person to do all of well), it will be nearly impossible to find a great president (there aren't that many Reagans or Coolidges) and we'll be lucky to get middling good ones who only screw up some of the time (both Bushes, Clinton) and likely to get bad ones (Carter, Nixon, LBJ). In fact, I even offered some suggestions as to how to fix the structural problem.
How this came out to you as an apologia for Bush I have no idea, but I respectfully suggest that you are misguided, and perhaps should reread the post to gain a better understanding of what I was trying to point out.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at February 13, 2006 2:55 PM