海角大神

Does Obama face a 'competence' problem?

With an array of crises facing President Obama, his competence has come under scrutiny. But that might be the wrong way to look at the situation.

鈥淸T]he world is a mess.鈥� So declared former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last Sunday "Face the Nation." But, if the latest round of punditry is to be believed, so is President鈥檚 Obama鈥檚 foreign policy. The Washington Post鈥檚 David Ignatius regarding Secretary of State鈥檚 John Kerry鈥檚 efforts to broker a truce in Gaza. By targeting Mr. Kerry, of course, Mr. Ignatius鈥� critique will inevitably be viewed as implicitly indicting the president, who is Kerry鈥檚 boss. Ignatius鈥檚 critique comes two days after his colleague Fred Hiatt鈥檚 of 鈥渄isengagement.鈥� And finally, The Washington Post鈥檚 Chris Cillizza, citing recent survey data, argued that Obama faces a significant 鈥渃ompetence鈥� problem that threatens both his ability to accomplish much during his second term and, not incidentally, 鈥渕ake things very tough for his party in this fall鈥檚 midterm election.鈥�

I noted in that much of the criticism regarding Obama鈥檚 foreign policy fails to recognize the nearly insoluble nature of many of world problems (the recurring Israeli-Palestine clash only dates back at least to 1948, after all) and overstates Obama鈥檚 鈥� indeed, any president鈥檚 鈥� effective influence on events in general. Today I want to develop that point by focusing on Mr. Cillizza鈥檚 latest critique of the president鈥檚 managerial abilities, which he appears to blame in part for Obama鈥檚 foreign policy failings. As evidence of Obama鈥檚 managerial incompetence, Cillizza cites in which only 42 percent of respondents believe the phrase 鈥渃an manage the government effectively鈥� applies to Obama, while fully 57 percent believes it doesn鈥檛 apply to him. To Cillizza, this is clear proof that Obama 鈥渋s faltering badly on the competence question.鈥�

What should we make of Cillizza鈥檚 argument? To start, it鈥檚 worth noting that, as Cillizza acknowledges, the latest survey result isn鈥檛 much different from the responses in previous CNN surveys asking this same question. Indeed, back in September, 2011 鈥� before Obama won reelection 鈥� the same percentage of respondents 鈥� 42 percent 鈥� came to the same conclusion regarding Obama鈥檚 lack of managerial effectiveness. Last November only 40 percent of those surveyed said the 鈥渕anage government effectively鈥� moniker applied to Obama. In fact, as the graph put together by Day Robins (see above) and charting responses to the CNN managerial competence question dating back to 2008 indicates, views regarding Obama鈥檚 managerial capabilities seem to have stabilized: If the President has a significant competence issue, then, it is a longstanding concern that predates his reelection, and it is not nearly as certain as Cillizza seems to believe that it will have serious political implications this fall. It certainly did not prevent his reelection in 2012.

More importantly, however, it is not immediately clear what drives survey respondents鈥� answers to this question. What does it mean to be an effective manager? Cillizza himself seems fuzzy on this point 鈥� he attributes the low support for Obama鈥檚 managerial qualities to 鈥淸a] series of events 鈥� from the VA scandal to the ongoing border crisis to the situation in Ukraine to the NSA spying program 鈥� [that] have badly undermined the idea that Obama can effectively manage the government鈥︹�� But it seems to me that some of these issues, such as the border crisis or the situation in Ukraine, aren鈥檛 viewed by most people through a narrow managerial lens, if that means evaluating whether the president is an effective administrator of policies in these issue areas. I suspect instead that when it comes to the Ukraine conflict or immigration, people are criticizing Obama鈥檚 policies, or at least the perceived impact of these policies on outcomes, more than his managerial skills. Similarly, critics of the NSA spying program aren鈥檛 attacking how it was managed so much as who it targeted and on what basis.

But even in areas, such as the VA scandal, where outcomes do seem linked to poor management, the survey evidence indicates that most people do not blame the president. Thus, survey from last June showed that 61 percent of respondents believed that the VA problems were due to a 鈥渓ongstanding government bureaucracy鈥� while only 14 percent attributed the scandal to 鈥減oor management by the Obama administration.鈥�

But there is a more fundamental problem with Cillizza鈥檚 focus on Obama鈥檚 managerial competence. It feeds the inaccurate belief that the president is the nation鈥檚 CEO who has primary responsibility for managing the executive branch bureaucracy. This frequently voiced belief, however, flies in the face of both the Constitution and empirical evidence. In fact, the Framers allocated the primary levers of managerial control 鈥� particularly the ability to create, define a mission and pay for a government bureaucracy 鈥� to Congress, not the president. The managerial powers the president does possess, such as the ability to appoint senior officials to head the bureaucracy, is usually shared with the Senate. In some cases presidents can 鈥渕anage鈥� unilaterally, as when firing officials, although the cost of doing so is often politically prohibitive. But, as Obama discovered when debating options regarding a potential surge of military forces in Afghanistan, even a president鈥檚 鈥渃ommander-in-chief鈥�-related managerial powers are more limited than is commonly recognized. Journalists, in their reporting, often exhibit a blind spot to this constitutionally-mandated sharing of managerial powers, as Richard Neustadt noted more than half a century ago in his classic : 鈥淓ven Washington reporters 鈥� are not immune to the illusion that administrative agencies comprise a single structure, the 鈥榚xecutive branch鈥� where presidential word is law, or ought to be.鈥� In fact, as the news that Congress is taking the initial steps to fix the Veterans Administration reminds us, when bureaucracies fail, we usually ought first to start with Congress rather than the president when seeking solutions.

My point here is not to absolve Obama of all blame for the 鈥渕essy鈥� state of American foreign policy. It is instead to suggest that the problems are probably not caused by his managerial incompetence so much as a poor choice of policy options and a limited capacity, rooted in weak formal powers, to implement those options. Nor do I mean to imply that a president鈥檚 managerial skills (or lack thereof) don鈥檛 matter. They do 鈥� but their biggest impact centers on how presidents choose to utilize their immediate advisers, a topic about which I鈥檝e , and which I will try to address in another blog post. In the meantime, however, I see little evidence that Obama鈥檚 alleged lack of managerial competence is the cause of his foreign policy problems or that it will be a drag on the Democratic ticket come November.

Matthew Dickinson publishes his Presidential Power blog at .