Why An Obama Presidency Might Not Bring The Change You Thought It Would

Senator Barack Obama said he would eliminate the FFEL program and create a fully refundable $4,000 tax credit for college students and families after he’s elected president.

But how likely is either of those scenarios?

One political expert says that the U.S. political system isn’t designed for drastic change. We’re not likely to see any drastic government or social overhauls very soon.

In September Dr. Charles Cushman, associate dean at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management, predicted that even if the Democrats end up controlling the Congress and the White House, it doesn’t automatically ensure a smooth political process.

Working Within the System

The actors may be different, but the play is almost always the same, according to Cushman. Our founding fathers purposefully set up our government with three branches to ensure political and social stability. The framers of the U.S. Constitution learned from Oliver Cromwell, who in 1649 overthrew the English government and in 1653 made himself "Lord Protector" (i.e. dictator) until he died in 1658.

"Since the founders needed a government that could act, but still feared tyranny, they built a complex system of checks and balances," he explained. That complexity makes it difficult for anyone in power to effectuate any drastic changes in a short amount of time because it requires the Congress and the president to work together, and that’s easier said than done, even if the same party controls both branches.

Since the end of World War II, Republicans have spent more time in the White House (36 years for Republicans vs. 18 for Democrats) and Democrats have spent more time fully controlling Congress (37 years for Democrats vs. 10 for Republicans). That dichotomous relationship has forced the executive and legislative branches to cooperate to get anything done. Arguably some of the largest and most sweeping legislation in the past sixty years was done with bipartisan input and support.

With One Party In Control

Cushman said that even if Democrats control Congress and the White House, drastic legislative action isn’t likely for two reasons. First, Democrats and Republicans view the executive branch differently. Democrats tend to have a populist view and they don’t take marching orders from the president, even if he’s from the same political party. Democrats believe that Congress should set the legislative agenda, not the president, Cushman explains.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been more apt to fall in line with Republican presidents. They tend to be good soldiers, and work with the president to pass his legislative agenda, according to Cushman.

Cushman pointed to the first two years of President Clinton’s presidency as an example. Very little major legislation was passed in his first two years as president even though Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. It wasn’t until Republicans swept into power in the 1994 elections that Clinton was able to pass major legislation on welfare reform, the minimum wage, and tax reductions.

If the past is any indicator, there will be tension and disagreements between the White House and Congress no matter who wins the presidential election. This will likely impede quick passage of any major legislation.

Second, Cushman believes there’s just too much on legislators’ agenda to realistically accomplish it all in just four years. Legislative bodies tend to strike fast after coming into office. In 2008, after the Democrats retook the House and Senate and introduced a flurry of bills – e.g., lowering student loan interest rates – to fulfill promises they would accomplish in their first 100 days. The volume and seriousness of the issues facing the incoming administration and Congress will make it tough for any government to act quickly on all of them.

"Where would you even begin?" asked Cushman. "Do you start with the economic crisis, taxes, Iraq, health care, or wiretapping?" Cushman believes the fighting between the White House and Congress could begin in just deciding which issues to tackle first. If they get too bogged down on the agenda, Cushman questions how much they’ll accomplish in subsequent years.

Sustainability and Stability

If the idea of "more of the same" makes you depressed, cheer up! The U.S. government was designed to temper drastic overreactions. This is evidenced in the most recent efforts to pass a massive bailout bill for U.S. financial institutions. The financial crisis is clear, and after moving at breakneck speeds, Congress finally put on the brakes to take a closer look at the costs of the bailout and the powers being vested in an unelected government official. This is how the system is designed to work and it is unlikely that this year’s elections will drastically change this.

Whether you agree with Cushman’s assessment about the efficacy of Obama or McCain, it’s easy to argue that the legislative process can be slow and burdensome no matter who is in control. But the same factors that make the legislative process slow protect us from the turbulence that large swings in power, opinions, and sometimes mass hysteria could otherwise cause. No matter what, cheer up! Change – albeit slow and deliberate – is still possible.

This article was adopted from a previous article that I wrote and was published in NASFAA’s Today’s News on 10/14/08.