Why Obama Must Talk to the GOP

The president doesn’t need to cave on Obamacare to help end the GOP-inspired fiscal crisis.

President Barack Obama visits M. Luis Construction on October 3, 2013 in Rockville, Maryland.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
Oct. 7, 2013, 2 a.m.

I am on re­cord ad­voc­at­ing two seem­ingly in­con­gru­ous po­s­i­tions. First, Pres­id­ent Obama can’t ca­pit­u­late to GOP de­mands to un­wind the Af­ford­able Care Act (read here). Second, his po­s­i­tion against ne­go­ti­at­ing with Re­pub­lic­ans is polit­ic­ally un­sus­tain­able (read here).

Let me un­pack both con­clu­sions.

Obama can’t cave: You can ar­gue that Obama­care is bad for the coun­try (dis­clos­ure: I’m am­bi­val­ent. While its goals are ad­mir­able, I doubt the gov­ern­ment can im­ple­ment such a com­plex law). You can cri­ti­cize the pres­id­ent’s no-com­prom­ise pos­ture in 2010 that res­ul­ted in a par­tis­an law. And you cer­tainly can charge the White House with polit­ic­al mal­prac­tice for fail­ing to grow sup­port for the meas­ure over three years. But you can’t ex­pect Obama to aban­don his sig­na­ture achieve­ment, which is es­sen­tially what the Re­pub­lic­ans are de­mand­ing.

First, it would be bad polit­ics. For good reas­ons, Obama’s lib­er­al back­ers already ques­tion his re­solve. His cav­ing on health care might be their last straw. Second, a ca­pit­u­la­tion of this mag­nitude over the debt ceil­ing would set a poor pre­ced­ent. It would give minor­ity parties too much power. Re­pub­lic­ans should con­sider the long-term con­sequences of their ac­tions. What if a Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent gets elec­ted in 2016 and en­acts his­tor­ic tax re­form? A Demo­crat­ic minor­ity could threaten to ru­in the na­tion’s cred­it un­less the pres­id­ent re­peals the tax pack­age.

This crisis was en­gin­eered by Re­pub­lic­ans (as shown by the New York Times story here), and thus voters are likely to dir­ect most of the blame to the GOP. Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers misled their most loy­al sup­port­ers by prom­ising to over­turn Obama­care this month. It was nev­er go­ing to hap­pen.

Obama must ne­go­ti­ate: Obama has at least two in­cent­ives to talk. First, there is the mat­ter of op­tics. Voters want to be­lieve that their lead­ers are open-minded, a trait they par­tic­u­larly ex­pect in a pres­id­ent who prom­ised to change the cul­ture of Wash­ing­ton. Obama simply un­der­mines his cred­ib­il­ity by stiff-arm­ing the GOP. Their ob­stin­acy is no ex­cuse for his. Dur­ing the last pro­trac­ted gov­ern­ment shut­down, Pres­id­ent Clin­ton talked al­most every day with GOP rivals Newt Gin­grich and Bob Dole.

Second, Obama has an op­por­tun­ity to deftly steer an em­battled and di­vided GOP away from Obama­care and to an is­sue worthy of high-stakes ne­go­ti­ations: The na­tion’s long-term budget crisis. While it’s true that the de­fi­cit has dropped in re­cent months, noth­ing has been done to se­cure So­cial Se­cur­ity and Medi­care bey­ond the next 10 years. Punt­ing this red-ink quandary to the next pres­id­ent would mar Obama’s leg­acy.

In April, I wrote that both the White House and the GOP House had in­cent­ive to strike a deal that would both raise taxes and trim en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing. The story traced the out­lines of such a deal, but the mo­ment was lost. Boehner doesn’t trust Obama and is wor­ried about a re­volt from his no-com­prom­ise caucus. Obama doesn’t trust Boehner and is wor­ried about a re­volt from his no-com­prom­ise caucus. The House speak­er re­portedly raised the idea of a so-called grand bar­gain at a White House meet­ing last week, and got laughed at. That is the ex­act wrong re­sponse.

If Obama is go­ing to blink, it should not be over Obama­care. On gov­ern­ment debt, however, a little hu­mil­ity and risk in the short-term might earn Obama the na­tion’s grat­it­ude for gen­er­a­tions.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4489) }}

What We're Following See More »
AND VICE VERSA
Plurality of Trump Voters Just Want to Stop Clinton
14 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

"Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday." When Trump supporters were asked to give their primary reason for supporting him, 47% said to block Clinton from winning. In almost a mirror image, 46% of Clinton supporters said they were primarily out to thwart Trump.

Source:
IF HE’LL JUST LISTEN…
Many GOPers Still Think Trump Can Be Brought to Heel
31 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
INCLUDING CLINTON
Trump Finance Guru Has History of Contributing to Dems
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"Like Donald Trump himself, the Trump campaign’s new national finance chairman has a long history of contributing to Democrats—including Hillary Clinton. Private investor Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s new campaign fundraising guru, has contributed more than $120,000" to candidates since 1995, about half of which has gone to Democrats.

Source:
AT LEAST NOT YET
Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Source:
×