This month's American Prospect cover features a package that can boringly be called "institutionalism" and can more interestingly be called "forget the president." It's a package that's pretty dear to my heart, as my main conclusion from studying the sorry history of health reform is that reformers always place their hopes in the executive but find they fail in the Senate. Which is to say, in politics, institutions beyond the presidency are important, and have a will of their own. The Congress decides legislative reform. The Federal Reserve has enormous, autonomous, power over the economy. The armed forces has real influence over military strategy, including any possible withdrawal from Iraq. But for whatever reason, in American politics, we tend to focus almost exclusively on the president, and a quick glance at the history of failed reforms suggests that's a serious tactical mistake. As we trickle the package out over the next week or two, I'll be saying more about the individual pieces (including my profile of Senator Max Baucus), but for now, let me link folks to my introduction, where I try and set down the thesis of the package:Forget the president. Not totally, of course. The president matters. But not as much as you think. Not as much as you've been led to believe. The centrality of the executive is something of a convenient fiction in American politics. Convenient for the media, which can tell the story of national affairs by following a single character. Convenient for the party that holds the White House, which can outsource the messy work of constructing an agenda to one actor. Convenient for the party that does not hold the White House, which can create an agenda out of simple opposition. And convenient for voters, who can understand politics through the actions of a discrete player and offload their dissatisfaction onto the failures of a hapless individual.But the "great man" theory of the presidency is not convenient when it comes to actually creating change. Again and again, presidents disappoint. They fail to pass health-care reform or Social Security privatization. They don't ease partisanship or break through gridlock. They prove impotent in the face of immediate crises and leave long-term challenges to fester. And so we tire of them, resolving to replace them with more presidents. Better presidents. Presidents of the other party, or of the same party, or of no party at all. Businessmen like Mike Bloomberg, insurgents like Ralph Nader, charismatic leaders like Barack Obama, self-professed mavericks like John McCain.Executive leadership is important, of course, but the continual failure of our presidents should be lesson enough that it is not sufficient. The executive is but one actor in a sprawling drama. Consider this: Comprehensive health reform has been attempted or considered by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. It cannot be that they were all dunces, or weaklings, or incapable legislative tacticians.Read the whole thing, as the kids say. And while you're at it, subscribe to the magazine. Indeed, if you subscribed, you'd have a neat password that would let you enjoy the whole package right now!
