Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Presidential Vetos

Thanks to Scott Eiland, I found this terrific tally of Presidential veto use throughout history. Contrary to what some in the comments to our earlier thread suggested, the fact that the President's party controls congress does not explain Bush's incredibly low number of vetos. Presidents FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Carter all enjoyed similar circumstances throughout most or all of their Presidencies, and used the veto infinitely more often than this President has.

Interestingly, the chart also gives some idea why Andrew Johnson was so hated by the Congress: he used the veto more than the previouis six of his predecessors combined. (Or was that a symptom, rather than a cause? Ah, history!)

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Presidential Vetos
  2. Bush's Vetos
Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
pennywit (mail) (www):
Two words: Party discipline.

--|PW|--
5.25.2005 11:45am
Aaron Pohle (mail):
What laws has congress passed that Bush strongly disagrees with?

I think that there are two issues. First, I don't think that Congress has done much that Bush would strongly oppose. I think the other is how someone sees the role of the President and the role of the veto power. To some, it is merely another power the president has, that should be used to correct policy as the president sees fit. To others, it is more of an emergency power to be used when circumstances are grave enough to justify it.

I suspect that Bush sees the veto power as more of a last resort option, and I suspect that congress has not passed a law during his presidency that, to him, warrants its use.
5.25.2005 12:02pm
rvman (mail):
Bush used his Gubernatorial veto 95 times in 6 years, which is in line with how other recent governors have used it in Texas. I'd say, not using the Presidential veto reflects at least qualified support for bills, not a lack of will.
5.25.2005 12:19pm
M. Scott Eiland (mail):
Andrew Johnson also had more vetoes overriden than any President in history--15 out of his 29 for an astounding 51.7% override rate even with 8 pocket vetoes to run up his success numbers (Pierce was overridden 5 out of 9 times--no one else is even close as far as rate goes). Johnson was a border state Democrat who was put on the ticket with Lincoln to cement the alliance that was the "Union Party" (the Republicans combined with the War Democrats) in 1864, and he was not inclined to go along with the Republican plans for Reconstruction after he replaced Lincoln. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress, they often went right through him, and eventually decided to get rid of him via impeachment. The removal vote in the Senate failed by one, but he was more or less impotent during his remaining time in office.
5.25.2005 6:57pm
John Newquist (mail):
Presidents FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Carter were all Democrats.

Possibilities:

- Democratic controlled Congresses are likely to push through legislation that even their own presidents think stinks.

- Republicans haven't had a break like this in a long time; the party as a whole is choosing their strongest issues first, to gather public support and consolidate their power.

- Bush wants the threat of veto to mean something; everyone knows he hasn't vetoed anything yet, so when he does everyone will know how much he cares about the issue at stake.

- Bush is holding back vetoes because, in general, he believes Congress is doing the will of the people, and he wants democracy to do its job. Only on issues that weigh on his conscience (stem cells?) will he bring excercise his veto power.

- Bush wants to garner as much support for his policies among Congress as possible. He sees the veto as working counter to that goal by making Congress more generally hostile with him. He'll start using it if Congress starts scuttling his ideas (like tax cuts, Soc Sec reform).

None of the above are exclusive. All of them probably play some role in the President's decisions so far.
5.26.2005 3:35pm