Would President Romney have prevented the 'sequester'?
If Mitt Romney had won the presidency, would he have headed off the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts commonly known as the 鈥渟equester鈥�?
Mr. Romney himself implies that his answer to that question is 鈥測es.鈥� In his big interview Sunday with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Mr. Romney expressed regret at his relegation to the national sideline and said that, if elected, he鈥檇 have focused his executive skills on fixing the sequester problem.
鈥淚t kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done,鈥� he said.
Jeb Bush echoed that sentiment on Tuesday morning, saying that 鈥淚 wish Mitt Romney was president right now because I think we鈥檇 have someone who would be in the midst of trying to forge consensus,鈥� Bush said. 鈥淚t breaks my heart that he鈥檚 not there, he鈥檚 a good man.鈥�
We鈥檙e not so sure that President Romney would have succeeded where President Obama has so far failed. But let鈥檚 run through his discussion points on the subject, shall we? Maybe you鈥檒l be convinced where we weren鈥檛.
LEADERNESS. In his Fox interview, Romney expressed the common idea that the US chief executive is a lead sled dog pulling the nation in his wake. In the context of an issue of legislative gridlock, such as the sequester, that means the president needs to impose his will on lawmakers, maybe by locking them all in a room until they reach consensus.
鈥淭he president brings people together, does the deals, does the trades, knocks the heads together. The president leads. And I don鈥檛 see that kind of leadership happening right now,鈥� said Romney.
Yes, but how would knocking a few legislative heads cause the GOP to accept a tax increase? The problem is that there is a deep and substantive divide on fiscal policy between Republicans and Democrats. Invoking 鈥渓eadership鈥� as a means to close that gap is vague at best.
Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan calls this the 鈥淕reen Lantern鈥� theory of the presidency, after the fictional superhero.
鈥淚n this fantasy world, all legislative obstacles can be overcome through the sheer exertion of presidential will.... If you accept the false premise that the president is all-powerful, it鈥檚 totally logical!鈥� Professor Nyhan .
SUBTLETY. 聽Romney also complained to Fox鈥檚 Mr. Wallace that Mr. Obama鈥檚 response to the sequester crisis has been counterproductive. Obama flew around the country to do public rallies blaming the GOP for economic harm the sequester would allegedly cause, Romney said.
鈥淣ow, what does that do?鈥� said Romney. 鈥淭hat causes the Republicans to retrench and then put up a wall and to fight back. It鈥檚 a very natural human emotion.鈥�
We鈥檇 agree with that 鈥� Obama鈥檚 pre-sequester public campaign was an attempt to push the GOP towards his position and could well have polarized the issue more than it helped. Presidential public speeches often have that effect. The Republican lawmakers resisting the Democratic position here are doing so due to their own electoral imperatives. Most are from GOP-leaning districts or states and would pay a political price at home if they moved toward Obama.
That said, should legislators base their votes at all on the fact that the president is annoying them?
PERSUASIVENESS. Romney noted that as governor of Massachusetts he鈥檇 had to deal with a heavily Democratic legislature. He said that what Obama needs to do in the current context is stop campaigning and work on lawmakers individually.
鈥淗e鈥檚 the only one that can say to his own party: Look, you guys, I need you on this 鈥� and get some Republicans aside and, say, pull them off one by one. We don鈥檛 have to have these gridlock settings, one after the other, on issue after issue.鈥�
OK, this sounds great but, again, exactly how does the president change minds about the core fiscal beliefs that are causing the divide between the parties? (See 鈥淕reen Lantern,鈥� above.) Does he scare them? What? President Lyndon B. Johnson used to accomplish this by liberal use of federal funds 鈥� promising Western senators huge water projects to back civil rights, for instance. But Obama doesn鈥檛 have the money to do this, and a Republican president would, in any case, likely be philosophically opposed to such an approach.
Here鈥檚 our bottom line: President Romney鈥檚 ability to handle the sequester would have been entirely dependent on his electoral context. If he鈥檇 been elected amid a GOP landslide that flipped the Senate Republican, he would indeed have prevented it, because his party would have had unified control of the government. If Democrats had held the Senate, despite his election, he鈥檇 be in the same position as Obama, only the reverse. He鈥檇 be trying to convince Senate majority leader Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats to back an all-cut package of deficit reduction.
And that鈥檚 why Obama鈥檚 in the situation he is. It鈥檚 about the balance of American power 鈥� not too few meetings and not enough knocked heads.
