When President Obama warned his Republican adversaries that he would move forward without them if they continued to refuse to compromise, I was right behind him. At long last, this was the Obama I had been hoping for and patiently waiting to see emerge from his White House ‘cocoon’ for most of the past year, since he elected to let his party take the lead on fiscal and healthcare reform.
He should have remembered that gaining across-the-board agreement on major legislative reforms among Democratic lawmakers is akin to herding cats. Indeed, it’s virtually impossible to persuade Democrats in Congress to vote as a bloc without a strong leader who is willing to either massage their egos or twist their arms.
Many Democratic House and Senate leaders tend to be liberals rather than moderates – a result of their larger, more urban constituencies. Unfortunately, some of them tend to forget that the only reason their party has a majority in both houses is because their ranks also includes lawmakers from rural or suburban areas of the country with large constituencies of centrist and independent voters.
Not surprisingly, these more moderate Democrats often find it difficult to justify voting for some of their liberal counterparts’ more radical legislative proposals. Even if they personally agree with some aspects of these proposals, they are also aware that a majority of their constituents may not support them. As a result, they are often caught between either going against the wishes of their party leaders, or ignoring the desires of their constituents.
President Obama is a liberal Democrat, but one who had previously shown sensitivity to this dilemma by purposely crafting less radical proposals that legislators could support without incurring the ire of voters. Similarly, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is a former Congressman who, like his boss, is a liberal who always worked to forge centrist compromises on legislation.
So I was shocked last year when the President ignored Emanuel’s advice on healthcare reform and trying terror suspects in civilian courts. The rather predictable result has been no Republican support and the erosion of moderate Democrats support for both of these proposals.
It is therefore gratifying for me to see the President now inserting himself back into the political debate and wresting control of these issues away from the more liberal members of his party.
At the same time, by debating the issues on television with his Republican opponents and incorporating their proposals into ‘his’ healthcare reform package, Obama has also positioned himself as a leader who is willing to compromise even though his Republican opponents are not.
It remains to be seen, however, if American voters will get it. Great political leaders are usually conciliatory in terms deal with their political opponents, but they also are not afraid to draw the line when their efforts at compromise are rejected.
Obama has correctly realised that Republicans are betting they have more to gain politically by opposing him than compromising. So after waiting two weeks for some sign of compromise, the President announced he would use the same reconciliation tactics Republicans used in recent years for tax cuts to pass his healthcare reforms. By adopting this approach, he has signalled he will not allow solutions for America’s problems to be held hostage by partisan political posturing. But will this new ‘big stick’ approach work? Well, as the President himself said: “That’s what elections are for.”
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU
