This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Nov. 3, 2009 - President Barack Obama not only inherited the greatest assortment of messes of any president other than Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, he also assumed the presidency at a time when our system of government had become increasingly dysfunctional. We might expect people to differ regarding how they would solve the domestic and global crises President George W. Bush left behind. But what's more surprising is the criticism Obama has received regarding his approach to governing.
In any number of areas, Obama's actions regarding the process of governing reflect a commitment to better practices that are geared to eliminating the procedural breakdowns of the past and making the national government work again.
Take the manner in which Obama has dealt with Congress.
Critics have complained that Obama failed to provide Congress a White House-created health-care package for it to consider. Yet, one of the recurring themes of the past 60 years has been the unwillingness of Congress to legislate and its reliance on the executive branch to do its work. Obama's approach, in effect, invited Congress to take some initiative to craft and agree upon a health care program within certain broad parameters the president set.
It seems hard to criticize a president for asking Congress to legislate since it is the branch to which the Constitution gives "the legislative power."
Or consider Afghanistan.
Critics complain that Obama is undertaking a lengthy review of our policy there rather than responding to the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for more troops. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served in an administration that had seven years to prosecute the war, accuses Obama of "dithering." Yet shouldn't Obama receive plaudits for the deliberate way in which he is proceeding before deciding whether to commit more American lives and treasure to Afghanistan, and if so, under what strategy?
In the administration in which Cheney served, policy was often made without a full airing of views. President Bush believed in instinctive judgment -- recall his professed ability to look into Russian President Vladimir Putin's eyes and see his soul -- rather than study or debate. The policy miscues regarding the economy, Iraq and elsewhere under Bush's watch reflected the wages of that approach.
Obama, by contrast, is methodically reviewing the issue with a range of civilian and military advisers, inside and outside of the administration, who reflect different viewpoints.
For many years, Americans have complained of the lack of bipartisanship in approaching important national problems. The Bush administration rejected efforts to reach across the aisle. Instead, it acted as though it enjoyed a governing mandate even though it took office twice with the narrowest margins.
More than any president in recent times, Obama has tried to engage in the sort of bipartisanship that has long been lacking.
He continued in office the Secretary of Defense from the Bush administration, the widely admired Robert Gates, while also appointing to his Cabinet Rep. Ray LaHood, the Republican who presided over the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He nominated New Hampshire's Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as Secretary of Commerce until Gregg withdrew his acceptance. He named Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., an alumnus of the last three Republican administrations, to be ambassador to China and Republican Rep. John M. McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. He meets regularly with a range of Republicans, such as Sens. John McCain, Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe among others. He has repeatedly declared himself open to Republican ideas.
Obama has been criticized for his administration's effort to marginalize Fox News, yet it is hard to remember a president who has been as open to media questioning as Obama has been. Obama has far outpaced his recent predecessors in the number of evening news conferences and media interviews he has conducted. He even subjected himself to appearances on five Sunday talk show interviews by top political journalists on a single day. He scores high marks for his accessibility to the American people and his willingness to field questions from the national press.
Finally, consider the flap over Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. He was as surprised as anyone regarding the honor. Yet more surprising was the reaction to the award by his critics on the right. Obama received the prize presumably in recognition of the ideals regarding peace, which he has articulated and for his commitment to engage other nations rather than pursuing a unilateral foreign policy. At a time when our military is overextended and our economy is troubled, leadership through idealism and diplomacy become all the more necessary.
Regardless of how one views his substantive policies, President Obama's commitment to improving the process of our politics deserves admiration. Until we fix our political system, we will be hard-pressed to solve our other problems.
Joel K. Goldstein, the Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law at Saint Louis University School of Law, writes about and teaches constitutional law.