I still find it strange how little understood President Obama's political method is. The first person I know who identified it is Mark Schmitt, over two years ago. At the time, many liberals viewed Obama's inclusive rhetoric as a sign that he intended to capitulate the liberal agenda for the sake of winning Republican agreement. Schmitt disagreed. Obama's language is highly conciliatory, he wrote, but the method isn't:
One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It's how you deal with people with intractable demands -- put ‘em on a committee.
Last year I wrote a column making a similar point. Obama uses a similar approach toward Republicans as foreign enemies like the Iranian regime: take them up on their claim to some shared goal (nuclear disarmament, health care reform), elide their preferred red herrings, engage them seriously, and then expose their disingenuousness:
This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy.
Obama health care summit is a classic example of the Obama method. Once again, skeptics are viewing it as a plot that depends on securing Republican cooperation. Here, for example, is the New York Times analysis:
One big question about President Obama’s bipartisan health care summit, scheduled for Feb. 25, is whether American voters will really get a full and open competition of ideas and emerge with a clearer sense of whether they support or oppose the various proposals put forward by Republicans and Democrats.
Skeptics around Washington are already warning that the summit will be nothing more than Kabuki theater, allowing each side to grandstand on television while providing little in the way of substantive debate or additional understanding for the folks watching back home.
That's not the point. Obama knows perfectly well that the Republicans have no serious proposals to address the main problems of the health care system and have no interest (or political room, given their crazy base) in handing him a victory of any substance. Obama is bringing them in to discuss health care so he can expose this reality.
I'm not saying this is some kind of genius maneuver. I'm not even saying it will work. (I wouldn't bet against it, though.) I'm just saying that this -- not starting over, and not pleading for bipartisan cover -- is what Obama is trying to accomplish.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
COMMENTS (5)
Brilliant. This same strategy should be used with financial reform legislation, as well. Draw the Grumpy Old Plutocrats (GOP) in and force them to explain, publicly, why they're siding with Wall Street over the working and middle class stiff. Expose the hypocrisy and double standards.
Most of all, force them to debate and explain the "no" in a forum where they can't hide and parse the words later.
Brilliant. This same strategy should be used with financial reform legislation, as well. Draw the Grumpy Old Plutocrats (GOP) in and force them to explain, publicly, why they're siding with Wall Street over the working and middle class stiff. Expose the hypocrisy and double standards.
Most of all, force them to debate and explain the "no" in a forum where they can't hide and parse the words later.
It would be brilliant if there was any reason to believe that he has any firm resistance to Republican ideas on health reform. So far, all that has been strongly demonstrated is the administration's complete unwillingness to deal with progressives. Philosophically, Obama's apparently preferred approach, embodied in the Senate plan, based entirely on long-standing Republican ideas, appears aligned with the Right. Concession after concession has been made to the Right, while the Left has been told repeatedly that they must support the plan as is (despite its potential for actual harm to their constituents) or expect to get nothing.
How much further will the WH go to secure Republican votes and ... view full comment
It would be brilliant if there was any reason to believe that he has any firm resistance to Republican ideas on health reform. So far, all that has been strongly demonstrated is the administration's complete unwillingness to deal with progressives. Philosophically, Obama's apparently preferred approach, embodied in the Senate plan, based entirely on long-standing Republican ideas, appears aligned with the Right. Concession after concession has been made to the Right, while the Left has been told repeatedly that they must support the plan as is (despite its potential for actual harm to their constituents) or expect to get nothing.
How much further will the WH go to secure Republican votes and provide the appearance of "bi-partisanship." A weird "bi-partisanship" that does not represent or recognize as valid most of the most important interests and concerns of millions of citizens -- the Democratic party's own base?
Give me a break. If you claim not to understand the difference in policy between the Dems and the GOP, you're disingenuous or a dimwit. Probably the latter since you clearly don't even understand the problem. Obama has no strategy, he's the most inept President in living memory.
Give me a break. If you claim not to understand the difference in policy between the Dems and the GOP, you're disingenuous or a dimwit. Probably the latter since you clearly don't even understand the problem. Obama has no strategy, he's the most inept President in living memory.
dtoh, what then is your idea of winning over Republicans, total capitulation? A partisan bill would be single payer (which, as anyone with half a brain knows, is far preferable to the mess we have now).
I would love to know how you propose to eliminate denial of care due to pre-existing conditions and adequately insure the uninsured, all of it being deficit neutral. Hmm...let me guess: Tort reform. (a few percentage points in savings at best) sale across state lines (so much for states rights, and we will have a race to the bottom with regards to requirements) and HSA's (nice tax dodge for the rich, not a bad idea of small business owner, but again, just a few percentage points), oh and catas ... view full comment
dtoh, what then is your idea of winning over Republicans, total capitulation? A partisan bill would be single payer (which, as anyone with half a brain knows, is far preferable to the mess we have now).
I would love to know how you propose to eliminate denial of care due to pre-existing conditions and adequately insure the uninsured, all of it being deficit neutral. Hmm...let me guess: Tort reform. (a few percentage points in savings at best) sale across state lines (so much for states rights, and we will have a race to the bottom with regards to requirements) and HSA's (nice tax dodge for the rich, not a bad idea of small business owner, but again, just a few percentage points), oh and catastrophic care plans (which are nothing but cash cows for the insurance companies).
Wait, shall I repeat your claim it is all about "access" as though the 28,800,000 hits on google alone about cheap health insurance are not enough. "access" is meaningless when the policies are mostly junk and you can't even afford it anyhow.
Our system of employer based health care is a disaster. It locks many people into jobs that they are not suited, it stops formation of small businesses (again, because of the expense and risk) it gives a competitive advantage to companies that don't provide it (thereby increasing the likelihood that less companies will in the future).
Your response, just cast aspersions without offering any real solutions is a disgrace. All you did above is insult, zero analysis. Definitely the most inept poster on this thread. You got ODS, might I suggest trying to get some to relieve the pressure since it has so clouded your reasoning ability.
Blackton
see my post on Cohn's blog
Blackton
see my post on Cohn's blog