Is the United States a divided house or wanting in presidency?

Some are born great (like Harry Potter). Others have greatness thrust upon them. It seems that President Obama is falling into the latter category. He probably knew something of this sort was coming when he ran for the Presidency. He might not have accounted for how much he would need to rise to meet the challenge. The title of the blog suggests a question which I am in no position to answer. So I’d rather illustrate why the question seems important.

I’ve seen politics in the UK and India but nowhere has it been as polarized as in the US; at least when it comes to serious things. That the tea party, with vocal supporters of default can actually exert considerable influence in the decision making is alarming. While its most likely that default will be averted in the eleventh hour, the very fact that it took that much of give and take to reach a consensus pushes me to ask the question I did. Democracies are strong because they involve people. Any policy made is the result of a consensus and hybridizes ideas of different parties. Yet when faced with obstinate parties and unwavering ideologies: the core of any consensus, “compromise” is lost. That is a divided house. It’s a place where people start caring more about their beliefs and ideologies. Not about the house and the nation.

On the other hand there is the President. He is the elected representative, indirectly chosen by the people to lead them. To prevent concentration of power he is subject to the legislators on Capitol Hill. At times, he has the luxury of exemplary support in both houses. Else he executes the policies of the Federal government by engaging with the hill. His personality, charisma and power are crucial to the enabling of consensus. Several American presidents’ present precedents on this matter, including Dwight Eisenhower (often poor relations with Congress) and Ronald Reagan (exhausted the Soviets). In this case however, President Obama clearly is not able to break deadlock. He might be able to cajole his own party to accept cuts in social policies. He cannot get the G.O.P house speaker, John Boehner to accept closure of tax loopholes, let alone rises. Boehner in turn is under pressure from the conservative right to concede not an inch of ground. The democrats too refuse to concede deep cuts in a bloated and inefficient social service. Clearly if every party is to have their way a default is inevitable. A default will be terrible. It will spark partial government shutdown, quickly depreciate the dollar, increase cost of borrowing, and bump up actual cost of living. It will jeopardize the American and Global economy. Eventually as the American people get affected Congress will undoubtedly act. It would then be too little too late.

What the president must remember is that while Congress will be to blame, it is a body of 535 people. Eventually, they are responsible to their constituent which consists of a couple of million; at most. The president on the other hand is an individual directly responsible to the nation; vested with enormous authority to act in its interest. Congress might be paralyzed by the powerful weakness of democracies: indecision. That is why the executive exists. It is time for the president to do something truly presidential, if he can.