• Cover Story
• Table of
  Contents
• Contents By
  Topic
• Columns
  • Brownstein
  • Cook
  • Crook
  • Rauch
  • Stokes
  • Schneider
  • Taylor Jr.
• Regular
  Features
  • Hotline Extra
  • Inside Washington
  • Insiders Poll
  • K Street Corridor
  • People
  • The Week on the Hill

Events a continent apart on Tuesday demonstrated both the power of President Obama's coalition-building governing style and the increasing volatility of the one political force that now looks as if it could grow strong enough to threaten him.

The potentially transformative impact of Obama's approach was demonstrated at a remarkable Rose Garden event where 10 major automakers, the United Auto Workers, environmentalists, and governors (including California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger) amicably clustered around the president. Under a brilliant blue sky, they unveiled a historic agreement to dramatically raise automotive fuel-economy standards and end years of conflict among all of the interests present.

Californians erupted with a roar against the entire political establishment.

The warning sign for Obama came from California, where voters that same day overwhelmingly defeated five ballot initiatives to stabilize the state's finances that were supported by just that sort of government-business-labor coalition. That emphatic rejection highlights the possibility that sustained hard times could ignite a Ross Perot-style populist backlash against the entire political class -- not only elected officials but also the labor, business, and civic interests that Obama is harnessing.

The fuel-efficiency deal capped nine days of dramatic Democratic bridge-building. On May 11, five key medical groups, including several that ferociously fought President Clinton's universal coverage plan, signaled their willingness to work with Obama by pledging to slow health care inflation. The next day, House Democrats released revised legislation to combat climate change that drew head-turning praise from the utility industry. Then came the May 19 agreement with auto manufacturers, which is projected to increase fuel efficiency 30 percent and reduce automotive greenhouse-gas emissions 23 percent by 2016.

What's next? The lion lying down with the lamb? The Yankees reconciling with the Red Sox? Jen hugging it out with Angelina?

The auto agreement may have topped the recent breakthroughs, because the companies have fought higher fuel-economy standards for so long in Congress and in court. But the industry signaled a changing attitude in 2007 when it recruited former Democratic Rep. Dave McCurdy, a centrist, to be president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Discouraging the manufacturers from lockstep opposition, McCurdy has steered them toward deals that provide certainty about the path of environmental and fuel-economy requirements. That certainty allows automakers to better target their investment. Utility executives cited the same reasoning to explain their support for the House climate-change legislation.

The Obama administration shrewdly recognizes that this desire for clarity after years of partisan paralysis has created opportunities for previously unthinkable alliances. The administration has responded by pursuing agreements with industry that unambiguously advance Democratic goals but do so through flexible means that address business concerns. Talks between White House climate-change czar Carol Browner and the auto industry began within days of Obama's inauguration. "The administration absolutely knows where they want to go, but they are open to ways to get there," McCurdy said. "There was just a lot of open, honest conversation that I think people respected."

Federal bailout dollars surely warmed General Motors and Chrysler to Obama's efficiency goals. But the other companies may be making a different calculation, one shared by the energy and health interests choosing to work with Democrats rather than join Republicans hoping to overthrow them through unremitting opposition. Those industry decisions are "a sign a lot of these companies [believe] the Democrats are going to be in charge for a while," says Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf.

That hard-headed assessment could help Obama solidify a formidable governing coalition. But the California vote shows its potential Achilles' heel. In rejecting the five initiatives backed by state leaders -- and passing only the one that limits elected officials' salaries -- Californians erupted with a roar of distrust against the entire political establishment. "Their attitude: Voters felt, "These are the jerks who got us into this mess. Why should we trust the solution they suggest?" said Ben Goddard, who devised the ads for the coalition supporting the measures.

For now, the big difference between California and Washington is that Obama retains a level of public trust that the Golden State's leaders have squandered. But even as the president gathers old antagonists into breakthrough coalitions, the California vote shows that many economically shell-shocked Americans distrust all of the interests he's mobilizing. Like tremors from a distant earthquake, the California result suggests there may still be unstable ground beneath the expanding fortress of support that Obama is so skillfully constructing.