A balancing act
Toolbox
Published: January 6, 2009
President Bush used to say he didn't believe in bargaining against himself. He meant that when he offered a proposal, he didn't begin with a compromise. Rather, he pushed for the maximum and gave ground only when he had to.
Thus, he gained a reputation as ideological and partisan. The opposition was not to be dealt with in good faith as a legitimate participant in the process. It was to be defeated.
Barack Obama has promised a new kind of politics, and there is fear in some quarters (see Paul Krugman's column, below) that he will be bargaining against himself. He has made a point of reaching out to Republicans, even placing two in his Cabinet. And in putting together his economic recovery program, it appears he will include tax-cutting provisions designed to appeal to Republicans. The danger is that by beginning with compromise, he will give Republicans room to drag him so far in their direction that the effectiveness of his economic program ultimately is undermined.
Obama's campaign methods and rhetoric showed the promise of politics that rises above the bitter partisanship of Washington. He hoped to put together a mandate broad enough that he would win support across the spectrum, allowing him to be president of all the people, not merely of the majority that elected him. Support that broad would furnish him the political power to address the many problems awaiting him.
But even if he is able to win broad support from the electorate, it's not clear yet whether Republicans in Washington are in the mood for compromise. Some conservatives adhere to the program of Herbert Hoover, the president who, faced with the onset of the Great Depression, counseled restraint and whose treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, famously advised that the solution for companies in trouble was to "liquidate."
Other Republicans see danger in granting Obama an opportunity to establish programs that would earn the gratitude of voters, the way the New Deal gained the gratitude of voters for Franklin Roosevelt. They see social programs as a way for government to buy the loyalty of voters. Thus, allowing Democrats to use government effectively — by putting a national health program in place, for example — would strengthen the Democrats' hold on power.
Most Americans probably would rather avert a new depression rather than remaining loyal to a political ideology that, at this point, has shown itself to be bankrupt. Obama, however, has to deal with the Republicans in Congress, who may do everything they can to block an effective response to the economic crisis.
On their merits, tax cuts for lower- and middle-income taxpayers and to encourage employment are probably justified, and so reaching common ground with Republicans ought to be possible. But Obama also means to incorporate major government spending programs into his recovery program — an enormous opportunity for addressuing problems long left to languish. He must be prepared to compromise where it will lead to a positive result, but also to fight where necessary to achieve essential goals. It is the crucial balancing act of governing.
16