Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Domestic Policy

Introduction

Issues pertaining to governance have always drawn controversy form different quarters. This is especially with regard to what has come to be commonly referred to as separation of powers. Needless to say, the different branches of government were aimed at checking each others’ actions so as to ensure that they are constitutional and are not detrimental to the people. However, these powers are, more often than not, shared between the different branches of government. For instance, while the Congress has all the legislative powers vested on it in Article 1, Section 1, it is required to share the same with the executive (Davidson 257). Indeed, presidents have the capacity to shape the legislative agenda although they may not ensure that their recommendations become laws (Davison 257). Modern presidents have strived to dominate the executive branch agencies, not to mention the fact that they have the capacity to veto congressional enactments (Davidson 257). Indeed, they have the capacity to ignore laws if they deem it appropriate. While the three branches are blended and assigned special duties, the relationship is always a result of accommodation and compromise rather than isolation (Davidson 259). In the past, the legislature and the executive have kept their distance from each other. However, some presidents such as the two Roosevelt were active in legislature. George bush, on the other hand, indicated his desire to take the power denied of the executive by the legislature (Davidson 261). Nevertheless, their success is dependent on their capacity to build a rapport with the legislature, especially in instances where they control the Senate and the House. Irrespective of the popularity of the modern presidents, they are always faced with the prospects of decreasing public approval and hope in their leaderships (Davidson 270). In most cases, however, the Senate and the Congress will have different majorities. Such divided governments come with a high price with respect to policy stalemate (Davidson 273).

In most cases, presidents have to make deals and compromise with varied stakeholders so as to eliminate such stalemates. Such was the case for Obama prior to the signing of the health reform bill in 2010. As the movie “Obama’s deal” shows, the idealistic president pursued the fight for the healthcare reform bill and ended up cutting deals with a large number of the powerful special interests against which he had campaigned. As Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority leader reveals, the passing of the bill involved the use of hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying in an effort to gain support for the healthcare bill. Previous efforts to cut the deals had resulted in the sinking of the president’s approval ratings, and the loss of Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. It was not until another round of talks and round-the-clock deal making before the bill sailed through.

This is, undoubtedly, quite surprising especially considering that the president had not only indicated that the lobbyists and special interest groups would have to abide by a certain code of ethics and would not get a job in his White House (Tichenor 265). Modern presidents have incentives to keep away from organized interests, especially considering that ordinary citizens view the later with contempt and suspicion. However, neither of the two can disregard the other. Presidents may see the interest groups as sources of mobilized opposition, while interest groups must factor in the immense powers vested on the executive in policy formulation, agenda setting, policy implementation and budget making (Tichenor 267). As much as a large number of interest groups allied to presidents that have restricted leadership opportunities gain fewer tangible benefits that assumed, oppositional groups usually see adversarial politics popular in such presidencies as hospitable to effective and vibrant activism (Tichenor 291).

Works cited

Davidson, Roger. H. “Presidential Relations with Congress” James P. Pfiffner and Roger H. Davidson eds. Understanding the Presidency, Pearson, 2013.

Frontline coverage of the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act. HYPERLINK “http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/utm_campaign=homepage” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/utm_campaign=homepage

Tichenor, Daniel. J. “The Presidency and Interest Groups: Allies, Adversaries, and Policy Leadership” in Michael Nelson, ed. The Presidency and the Political System, 9th eds. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010. 264-294.