Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much, but most agree on this: The federal government isn’t working the way it should. Instead of fixing problems and boosting the economy, recent presidents have seemed to lurch from crisis to crisis — from Iraq and Hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush, to Islamic State and the Obamacare rollout under Barack Obama.
A recent study found that “government breakdowns” have occurred twice as often under Presidents Bush and Obama as during the decades before.
That’s driven public trust in government to historic lows. Partisans will tell you the reason is simple: People in the other party have messed things up.
In a smart, concise book, “Why Presidents Fail and How They Can Succeed Again,” Elaine C. Kamarck, who worked on federal government reform in the Bill Clinton administration, argues that Bush and Obama failed to grasp the importance of managing the federal bureaucracy.
“Voters are angry at politicians, and that’s understandable,” Kamarck told me. “They’re angry because they want a president and Congress that can get things done, and that’s not happening. Some think it’s because the politicians are corrupt. But I’m sorry; George W. Bush’s problems didn’t come from corruption, and neither did Obama’s. Our real problem is that we’ve had a series of presidents who were so inexperienced in governance that they neglected a big part of their job, and that led to dramatic failures.”
The neglected part, she argues, is old-fashioned management: negotiating with Congress, implementing programs carefully, and keeping an eye on federal bureaucracy to stop crises before they happen.
Getting it wrong despite brilliance
Presidents and their aides have assumed that good politics and persuasive rhetoric could cover up flaws in performance. They were wrong.
“George W. Bush got some very big things wrong in spite of having a brilliant political strategy,” she writes. “And Barack Obama seems to be the epitome of someone who is a brilliant campaigner with a lackluster ability at governing.”
Kamarck is a Democrat, but she’s tough on Obama. On Obamacare, she writes, “An inspirational and intellectual president failed the most basic test of leadership: creating reality from rhetoric.”
What’s the lesson for voters facing this year’s choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?
“Easy question,” Kamarck said. “Clinton talks about the importance of governing and having a Congress that can get things done. She has lots of plans, lots and lots of plans. That at least means she has a grasp of the problems. He has no plans at all.”
Kamarck says the next president needs to focus on basic management precepts: Pay more attention to implementation. Do performance audits on the bureaucracy. Set up an “early warning” system so you aren’t blindsided by breakdowns.
We don’t know, in much detail, how the candidates would actually govern if elected, especially in the case of Trump.
So let’s stick to a simple question: How are you going to get it done?
Doyle McManus is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. E-mail: doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com
