Obama May Be Transformational, but Don't Expect an Instant End to Partisanship

March 19, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Barack Obama's campaign for president was buoyed by at least two critical factors. First, he benefited from the public's wholesale rejection of the Republican incumbent. But more than that, he came to epitomize the alternative to the partisan gridlock. "Change," in Obama's vision, meant not only moving the White House out of Republican and into Democratic hands. It meant moving from a state of partisan stalemate to post-partisan collaboration.

He tapped into a frustration that journalist Ron Brownstein identified in his 2007 book The Second Civil War , which argued that extreme partisanship was standing in the way of real reform in Washington.

Brownstein indicted a lack of leadership at the top—a seeming aversion to collaboration across the aisle. But Brownstein didn't stop there. He went on to suggest that the rules of the game—the way districts are gerrymandered, the way campaign chests are filled, the way issues become political footballs bandied about by special interest groups in Washington—made it almost impossible for lawmakers to break out of their partisan molds. In too many cases, the benefits of reaching consensus between adversaries paled in comparison to the cost. Members of either party willing to bridge the gap faced dire consequences: an angered political base, a dearth of campaign contributions, a primary challenge from a more partisan opponent, and likely a haranguing by pundits eager for media attention. The resulting dysfunction led to a diagnosis Bill Clinton articulated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention: "The American Dream is under siege at home, and America's leadership in the world has been weakened."

Two months into his administration, some have come to question whether the president has already failed in his effort to change the tone in Washington. Despite private meetings at the White House, compromises on key issues, and overwhelming public support for the president's agenda, not a single Republican House member voted for the president's stimulus plan.

But even a cursory reading of The Second Civil War makes clear that no politician—not even one as charismatic as Barack Obama—could have hoped to upend the status quo overnight. Doing so would have been akin to turning the Titanic on a dime. No matter how determined or skillful, no one should have expected the new administration to remake instantly the foundation that has ratcheted partisanship up for the better part of two generations.

The new president may be a transformational political figure, but we ought not castigate him for failing to perform a miracle. His success should be measured by a different yardstick. Most important, we should gauge how well he maintains support of the so-called swing voters—namely those who voted for Bush in 2004, but against McCain four year later. No doubt that the Democratic base voted for "change" away from Republican government last fall. But swing voters piled onto the Obama bandwagon because he promised to end the gridlock. If his policy agenda stays in line with their political sensibilities, Republicans may be forced more often to buck their more parochial interests.

As crucial will be the new administration's willingness to tackle the structural issues that drive members of each party to the poles. While states largely control the boundaries of congressional districts, Obama could wield the bully pulpit to push for more competitive contests, rather than maximizing the number of safe seats for each party. And in cases where Obama can transfer policy leadership to commissions not entirely beholden to party interests, he will be better able to chip away at the institutions that have driven Washington to dysfunction.

The persistence of Washington's polarization has proven that Ron Brownstein was right about the root causes of partisanship. But even if Obama's political talent could not retrench two generations of partisan rancor in three weeks, all is not lost. Maybe now we can agree that the root causes of polarization demand more than inspired leadership. And that's real progress, by any stretch.

Marc Dunkelman is vice president for strategy and communications at the Democratic Leadership Council.

Tags:
politics,
Obama administration,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

U.S. News Column: Obama's Post-Partisan Washington Failure GOP's Fault

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/03/20/usnews-column-obamas-post-partisan-washington-failure-all-republ

StewartIII of MD 9:40AM March 20, 2009

I am not sure why nobody chose to post anything with this article, so I guess I will be the first. Yes, President Obama was elected by a majority of the people to bring change. It was however a slim majority. President Obama during the course of his campaign set himself up to be the "savior of the United States." He did this all on his own. Now sixty days later he hasn't produced anything except defecits and people are a little upset. One lady is quoted by the associated press as saying "Now that Obama is in office, I will never have to put gas in my car again." Like I said he did it all to himself.

President Obama has started waging class warfare on people who are making over $250,000 a year. He says he is doing this to support the down and out. If he keeps going with class warfare all he will do is further push the economy into a recession. That is economics 101. Do you want to know why NY governor Patterson is against any state tax hike on people making over $250,000? He will drive what few rich people who are left in New York out of the state.

With the record spending that he has committed to our children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of paying for the nonsense. It's not a stimulus bill if it doesn't actually stimulate the economy? I can further prove my point with this, the economy hasn't rebounded as of yet. Unemployment keeps going up and the stock market is still in the tank! It is also not stimulative when a majority of the money is not released until after the 2010 election. Why should we as Americans have to wait for a "stimulated economy" to find a job and pay our bills. If Obama where really interested in the little people money would have been given to small business owners to hire laid off people. He wouldn't be running around trying to bailout every Tom who made a bad business decision.

Speaking of bad decisions, why would you put someone in charge of the IRS when they can't even pay their own taxes. How many of his nominees have run into tax issues when trying to get confirmed? There at least five people that I know of off hand but hey who's counting anyway. Tax Cheat, oops, I mean Treasury Secretary Geittner hasn't even rolled out any plan for saving the finance industry. I kind of think that would be pretty important considering our current economic situation.

By the way, I have made investments in the stock market. Several of those investments are now considered worthless according IRS tax code. Why shouldn't I get a bailout? The answer is because I believe in personal accountability unlike our current political machine that is in place. I made those decisions and they didn't pan out, oh well.

Joseph of NY 8:20PM March 19, 2009

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

It's Too Early to Write Off Either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney

Barack Obama and John McCain traveled unlikely paths to their nominations in 2008.

On Contraception Mandate, Obama Blunders Into the Culture Wars

Obama's contraception "compromise" is a gimmick that voters will see right through.

Why Mitt Romney Can't Sell Himself to Conservatives

Voters want to know if they can trust Mitt Romney.

Americans Deserve Political Freedom from the Catholic Church

Church leaders could not have been less gracious towards Obama's surrender on contraception.

What the Catholic Contraceptive Debate Is Really About

Today's debates about contraception and inequality are intertwined in that the bring up the question of morality.

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is a Phony Battle

The Catholic Church is asking the Obama administration to do something it cannot do itself: limit birth control use.

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.

On Women in Combat, Rick Santorum Insults Military Men

To suggest that the men in our armed forces cannot control their emotions is a real slap at the professionals who wear the uniform.

advertisement