Charbonneau 1

Natalie Charbonneau
Professor Kathlin Reed
English Composition
July 29, 2014
Dealing with Party Rivalries: A Look at Past Presidents Strategy
In recent years, there has been a spotlight on the 113
th
Congress, not for the laws being
produced but for the lack of them. It is clear that the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans
is the main issue. President Obama has taken to attacking House Republicans for their lack of
willingness to compromise, but is it all Congress and the separation of parties fault? Both parties
have been around for over 150 years and yet they only now find themselves at a deadlock?
Wrong. Presidents have been dealing with party rivalries for decades now and yet somehow
under Obamas leadership the 113
th
Congress is incapable of passing any necessary laws. Is
Obama doing everything in his power to ensure he gets results from Congress? To find the
answers, it is best to look at the history of politics. By examining the leadership styles of Lyndon
B. Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and how they dealt with rivalries, it can be seen that
no matter the make-up of Congress, it is the President of the United States that must go out of his
their way to get things done.
As previously stated, the Republican and Democratic parties have been around for over a
century. Today, each party sits on the opposite sides of the political spectrum but it wasnt
always like that. As James A. Thurber writes in his book Rivals for Power, In the latter quarter
of the twentieth-century, Congress was transformed from a relatively consensual institution with
significant overlap between the Democratic and Republican parties to an ideological, polarized
Charbonneau 2

battlefield with virtually no middle ground (38). Meaning that it wasnt until 1973 that members
of Congress began to follow what their parties wanted.
This being said, there was no majority opinion when one of the most effective presidents
in the history of the United States took office. Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36
th
President in
1963. He, however, was not voted into the position. Instead he was inaugurated on Air Force
One after the assassination of John F Kennedy. Just because he wasnt voted President doesnt
mean he didnt love the position. He was known for his fighting spirit and hands-on approach to
politics and because of his tenacity he saw great success. Joseph A. Califano, Johnsons top
domestic aid, even wrote that for hours on end, he pressured, persuaded, and pleaded with
Democratic leadership at weekly breakfasts, and with committee chairmen and recalcitrant
members in scores of phone calls and face-to-face meetings, to get laws back to him for
signature (122). The man never accepted the word no and because of this, Congress was no
obstacle for him. So much so, that in his first two years as president he saw 97 out of 113 major
measures passed; 84 out of 87 in the second two years (Califano, 149). He was so successful that
he holds the highest Presidential Success Score at 93.07. He knew how to handle Congress and
get things done.
As previously mentioned, just because party rivalry wasnt as prominent during this time,
does not mean there was a lack of differed opinions. Instead of the party rivalry that exists today,
there was rivalry between each congressman to bring as much money to their state as possible.
But, as was pointed out earlier, Johnson knew how to deal with them. For example, Califano
explained a time where Johnson wanted create a separate department for the Coast Guard but
Senator John McClellan, chairman of the committee overseeing the bill, was blocking it. In
response, Johnson suggested that I leak off the record to a friendly reporter that there are some
Charbonneau 3

who say McClellan is holding up the Transportation Department because he wants the Corps of
Engineers to build a dam on land he owns so hell get a lot of money when the government buys
the property (Califano, 125). Johnson was not afraid to go into the back room and broker a deal
to ensure that his legislation was successful. His tenacity knew no bounds.
One of the biggest component of Johnsons leadership strategy that set him apart from
other presidents, like Clinton and Obama, is Johnsons willingness to find out what everyones
opinions were. Back to the Coast Guard example, according to Califano, he talked to not only his
own party but everyone great and wide, including businessmen, members of both parties and
labor leaders (123-124). He wanted everyones opinion before he started pushing legislation
through to Congress. His approach to being President of the United States, is summed up
perfectly in one of Johnsons favorite quotes to say, Its not doing what is right thats hard for a
President. Its knowing what is right.
In contrast to the demanding Johnson, who refused to hear the word no, there was the
man who campaigned on the belief that he was a moderate; Bill Clinton. Although he was less
than successful in some of his more personal ventures, he successfully passed laws through
Congress. Unlike Johnson, Clinton wasnt stubborn or immovable, he was a willing negotiator,
a public official anxious to find so-called common ground in lawmaking (Jones, 88). In many
instances, including the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
Clinton successfully passed pieces of legislation with more Republican support than Democrat,
his own party. This leadership strategy did have its faults though. Congress, being the
manipulative type of people, would hold out until Clinton promised them what that they wanted.
Congressmen knew that Clinton was willing to negotiate and even if they wanted the bill to pass,
they refused. That doesnt mean that Congress completely took advantage of him. Clinton was a
Charbonneau 4

smart president and a skilled communicator. In fact, he is known as the most verbal president in
history (Jones, 58). Overall, his skills as a communicator and negotiator allowed him to
successful pass legislation through congress. These pieces of legislation included NAFTA, the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and trade agreements with China (Thurber, 7).
In fact, in his first two years as president his success scores in Congress were 86.39 and 86.43,
respectively (Thurber, 8). The only presidents who had higher scores were Eisenhower, Johnson
and G.W. Bush (during the aftermath of 9/11).
So how does Obama compare? When President Obama took office in 2009, he was
granted a Congress that was completely controlled by Democrats in the House and the Senate. It
was during this time Obama was most productive. His productivity can be seen due to the fact
that he successfully passed a stimulus plan and his highly controversial health care reform. It
wasnt until the 112
th
Congress that Obamas leadership strategy was no longer affective. The
Democrats lost control of the House, creating a divided Congress. The inauguration of the 112
th

Congress was a crucial turning point in Obamas term as president because then he had to
persuade Republicans to go along with his legislation (Bowling and Pickerill, 317). It was in that
aspect that Obamas leadership strategy failed.
Unlike Clinton, Obama has shown himself to be a complete Democrat at heart. Loyal to
his party, Obama has failed to create strong ties with Republicans because. The lack of a
Republican relationship with President Obama has caused a deadlock to occur within the
nations government, meaning nothing is getting accomplished. In fact the 113
th
Congress is one
of the least productive Congress in United States history. Instead of forcing the Republicans and
Democrats to work together, like Johnson, Obama has decided to use executive action to bypass
Congress all together.
Charbonneau 5

Overall, Obama needs to analyze the actions and strategies of his predecessors to
understand that he is a main component behind the deadlock in Washington. He must come to
recognize that in order to obtain his goals as president, he needs support from both parties and
his leadership strategy must focus on this. As Charles O. Jones discusses the powers of the
president in his book Clinton & Congress, he writes, there is nothing inherent in his status to
guarantee leadership or influence. Both must be earned (Clinton, 80). Obama hasnt achieved an
influence over the Republicans making them rebel. If Republicans maintain the House in the
upcoming elections, the United States is guaranteed to remain in a deadlock unless Obama
changes his leadership strategy. He either needs to become a willing negotiator, like Clinton or
take a more headstrong, hands-on approach, like Johnson. Either way, he needs to communicate
with Congress because Presidents who put a strong emphasis on consultation with Congress,
communicating often personally or through the staff with legislators, will get high marks and
succeed in influencing the House and the Senate (Thurber, 117).

Charbonneau 6

Works Cited
Bowling, C. J., and J. M. Pickerill. "Fragmented Federalism: The State of American Federalism
2012-13." Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43.3 (2013): 315-46. Oxford Journals.
Web. http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/3/315.full
Califano, Joseph A.The Triumph & Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson: The White House Years. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1991. Print.
Gilbert, Robert E. "The Political Effects of Presidential Illness: The Case of Lyndon B.
Johnson." Political Psychology 16.4 (1995): 761-76. JSTOR. Web.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791892
Jones, Charles O. Clinton & Congress. Norman: U of Oklahoma, 1999. Print.
Thurber, James A. Rivals for Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations. Lanham (Md.):
Rowman Et Littlefield, 2000. Print.