The Compromise President: Resting A Legacy On Weak Bridges

President Obama has enjoyed remarkable popularity during his first year in office, but the true test of his presidency is yet to come. As his broad reforms on the economy, health care and climate change come together, he faces a major gut-check. The president's readiness to make compromise after compromise with people who show no real desire to fix problems is becoming increasingly problematic, and is shaping up to be his Achilles heel.

While Obama's aspirations toward national solidarity are admirable (especially in a country this divided), bipartisan compromise isn't implicitly the ideal way to govern. Getting an abundance of votes means nothing in the long-run if the laws aren't ultimately effective. And Obama's tendency to make concessions in the name of bipartisanship appears to be encouraging him to water down reforms to the point where they may no longer work.

Let me illustrate my point with a simplistic analogy: think of a policy problem like the problem of getting across a river. Reformers will agree that a bridge needs to be built, while conservatives will complain that it'll put a bureaucrat between man and wilderness.

In order for reformers to succeed, they'll need to build a sturdy, robust bridge that won't break. It'll cost more, require more effort and be a challenge to execute. But conservatives won't want them to have that victory, so they'll try and weaken it to the point where it eventually breaks.

Obama's post-partisan self-image has blighted him with the habit of letting conservatives weaken critical reforms upon which his legacy will rest. He's done this with several major pieces of economic legislation, and seems stuck with a flimsy climate change bill. Now, by failing to unequivocally demand a public option for health care, he's in danger of building yet another weak bridge.

Sometimes, it works to take small steps in the right direction, but when the legitimacy of your ideology is at stake, it becomes crucial to go the necessary distance and ensure that your ideas are implemented in the best possible way. The tragedy is that if Obama's reforms fail to deliver the intended results, it will undercut not merely his approach but the very need for the changes he sought, which conservatives have maligned all along.

The larger problem is that fruitless reforms on tricky issues set us back by creating the impression that conservative naysaying was justified when it never was--when in reality the reforms failed because progressive policies were marred by those who aren't actually interested in solving problems.

To be fair, Obama is presiding over what seems to be the toughest time in American history to be a uniter. It increasingly seems as though bipartisanship, in this era, is antithetical to doing policy the right way. While Democrats have their imperfections, the GOP is effectively on auto-pilot opposition, where, any time an issue needs fixing, party leaders say no first, and occasionally--though rarely--think second.

We're fortunate that Obama is president--his understanding of today's complex problems is exceptional, and unlike many in his profession, he seems to have a genuine desire to fix them. But in order to effectively use this talent, he must rethink the efficacy of his partisan-balancing act.

At some point, Obama needs to refuse to compromise on the nuts and bolts of legislation, which seem minor in the short-run but could make the difference between success and failure in the long-run. Of course, this will make it tougher to garner the votes necessary to pass legislation, but that's what political capital is there for--and Obama has an abundance of that.

In his humility and quest for solidarity, Obama seems to forget why he's president: the country likes his ideas and trusts him to deliver. His approval rating emasculates that of Congress. He has no reason to fear a fight with any lawmaker or political figure, especially when his main enemies, the Republicans, have been deemed irrelevant by a decided majority of the public.

Obama wasn't elected to cautiously nibble around the edges of policy--he was swept in by huge margins to be a transformative leader, and the country is yearning to see more of that.

Follow Sahil Kapur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sahil_Kapur

Comments

[humanbeing-rick]

You hit the nail right on the head! This is the crux of the problem with the Democrats.
They were swept into power by the People, who were promised transformational change.

Obama'a ratings are going down now, and the Democrats are losing numbers, because they have failed to execute. The watered down, weak reform that they have produced thus far is a joke.
We need real change, and we need it now.

A thrid party may be in order for the next election, if these Dems cant do the job for us.

[SecularNation]

It will probably happen as the Dems shift to the right

[bayside]

I wish we had a dem president.­..........­..........­..........­..........

[martinspringfield]

Absolutely dead on. The way Republicans kill progressive programs when they are out of power or out of favor is to neuter them. Nixon did it with welfare and healthcare (ever wonder where that abortion, the HMO came from?). When they are in power, well - they govern so badly and expensively that one is tempted to conclude anarchy would be cheaper.

Obama likes to think he's so clever but he is getting creamed at this game. He has his own party running Congress and the GOP popularity at the lowest ebb he is ever going to see it - and he is still gutting anything workable in the name of being Mr. Popular. Compared to Bill Clinton, who forced much of his agenda through a radical opposition Congress through sheer gamesmanship, Obama is an amateur.

[jacklambert]

Progressive Government is now in office. I voted for them! But the Democratic Party has morphed into the a new Republican Party.

So far they get an F and Obama's Administration seems to have arrived at the event horizon of the black hole of irrelevancy.

This is not change I can believe in.

[themodernleader]

3rdcitizen. I have the advantage of seeing leadership through the Modern Leadership System, discovered through empirical and historical research. My new tools of assessing administrators and organizations are as transformiong as the telescope was to Gallieo as he studied the heavens. i am willing to risk my future, as was Gallieo, by describing in real time the repertoires of leadership that grow and destroy organizations. Our leaders appear to be in a fog as our country sinks more rapidly into defeat and lost opportunity. Such curious apathy and inertia can only be explained by the igniminous, incompetent, favoritistic management of the Chief Executive Officier. Obama is modeling his own administrative behavior after the failed, corrupt policies and procedures of the Bush Bunch. Subordinate line and staff continue to emulate the same leadership repertoires that prevailed in the previous Administration. I include the legislative and judicial branches in this assessment..

[Manx]

Obama is an admirer of FDR, but unlike Obama, FDR was a strong, bold leader. I was devastated when Obama decided to sweep the war crimes and torture scandal under the carpet. At this time, we need a strong, assertive president, not a compromiser. From what I've read and heard, I get the impression that Obama doesn't do anything without the advice of Rahm Emanuel, the political operative. Maybe they're only interested in re-election which means that principles are trumped by politics.

[dayala]

there won't be any re-election of Rahmbo's policies.

as Lloyd Benson would say "mr. President you're no FDR or LBJ".

[themidnightreview]

What Obama needs is that George W. Bush gumption to get his legislation through. Regardless of how many concessions he makes in the name of bipartisanship, he will constantly be dogged by the media, and in particular Fox News, for passing what they call a liberal agenda.

Creating politically balanced legislation is not effective, because with the current divisive state, Obama will always come up drawing the short straw.

[XME]

Actually, his biggest problem is that he has to rely on a Congress who is scared to death to make any big change...afraid to be a part of anything that fails, they'd rather do nothing. I expect if from Repubs, but's pathetic that so many Dems are making any significant reform next to impossible. It's sad when he has to compromise just to get middle of the road Dems on board, particularly when they have 60 Dems in the Senate.

Democracy is a great thing, but personally, I think we'd get a LOT more accomplished if Reps. and Senators were limited to ONE term. No one can buy off a Senator if they have no chance re-election. They'd have one term to make a name for themselves, rather than constantly worrying about how to get re-elected!

[FearlessFreep]

Sadly, we've seen this story several times before (most recently with Bill Clinton).

[themodernleader]

Mr. Kapur. Your righteous claim that the brilliant President understands today's complex problems: Only brilliant minds can address complex issues. This is the mentality of the authoritarian argument. Only superior humans can solve our problems and we are indeed lucky. However, God Bless His Soul: The brilliant President believes in compromise. For example, the global warming proposal was partly written and approved by the financial interests before it was submitted to Congress for their stamp of approval. The bail out bills were also designed with the banks playing a pivotal role. What resulted was an unprecedented transfer of wealth from our empty treasury to bankers who committed crimes of fraud, mendacity and swindle.
We don't require brilliant people running this organization. We don't need Intellectuals with preconceived crack pot ideologies using the people as guinea pigs. We need competent people. We need honest people with no hidden agendas. We need open people of integrity who talk straight and truthfully. We need people who show favoritism to no individual or group and who adhere to the Constitution and its Preamble. We need most of all, courage and wisdom to fairly direct, encourage and place confidence in the integrity of the American citizens.

[3rdCitizen]

I certainly worry that you're right, but I think it's still too early to tell. I don't know why President Obama hasn't been bolder & more aggressive toward the self-parodying Republicans & the blue dog Democrats. Maybe it's a strategic flaw, or maybe he has a more complex game plan going than I can surmise. Given all the challenges that the disastrous Bush years have left him with, I'll give him at least a year before I start trying to define his presidency.

[WritusMaximus]

Obama is transparent---what you see is what you get. Progressives decided to see in him what in reality was/is not there, so give credit/blame yourselves, NOT Obama.

[vascopyjama]

Can anyone tell me how many of the people in Congress are Jewish?

[Poboy]

I can't tell you that, because that's something they like to hold close to the vest.

But I can tell you this.

They are represented in that venue way-in-excess of their numbers in the population.

They are also over-represented in these as well:

Banking

Media

Academia

And it's not because they are the smartest.

[livinCalDemtbubble]

What happened to the audacity of hope, change you can believe in? Were they campaign hype?

[WritusMaximus]

Sad that many folks bought into the rhetoric. Let's have another round of "It's Bush's fault!"

[Nova16]

If Obama isn't willing to take on the republicans after the disaster of the Bush/Cheney years and the messes that they and their cronies in and out of congress have created at home and abroad, then the words and speeches he delivered in his campaign are empty and full of deceit. I am aware of his difficult task and his desire to win favor for his policies, but to continuously abandon his reforms and his unwillingness to toughen his stance against his obstinate opposition does not bode well for his success as a leader. To overcome the galactic problems this country faces was not of his making and he must use that bully pulpit to confront those whose party is responsible for our current misery and do it with vigor and commitment. These are serious times and requires a strong aggressive, leader to lead with unwavering fortitude against those who caused the problems in the first place.

[WritusMaximus]

You and the many folks here at Huff Po are wasting your time. Obama only listens to Geithner and Summers. After all, these two geniuses are what Obama calls INDISPENSABLES.

[Jodo]

My sentiments exactly. I don't get him at all. It's clear already he's not up to the task of advocating for any real reform or change. In my mind he's already a huge disappointment. There's nothing there with him. And all this with the financial industry and the economic powers that be being marginalized by their corrupt and irresponsible behavior. I agree the Republicans are setting him up for failure. Why not at least stand on some principle? Isn't that why he got elected?

[WritusMaximus]

You and the many folks here at Huff Po are wasting your time. Obama only listens to Geithner and Summers. After all, these two geniuses are what Obama calls INDISPENSABLES.