The coverage of Obama’s “failure” to achieve bipartisanship has been mostly naïve. The press has largely looked at it like a high school prom: if you ask out a girl and she says no, it’s the asker, not the askee, who is humiliated. He had a goal; he didn’t meet it; therefore, he failed.
But there are other reasons for bipartisanship.
Sometimes, a leader actually wants to take adopt a policy — for substantive or political reasons — that is more popular with the opposition than with allies. Sometimes they secretly believe that the opposition is actually right about some things. “Bipartisanship” enables you to do what you want to do anyway but say to your own supporters, “hey, I needed to be bipartisan.” I suspect that Obama’s tax cuts, unpopular with the left, fell into this category. Remember, Obama proposed a massive middle class tax cut during the campaign. He had to, and wanted to, deliver a tax cut. Why not therefore make it seem like a give?
In addition, if you reach out to the other side and they reject you, it’s THEY who look bad, not you. Hendrick Hertzberg of The New Yorker put this in a very interesting historical and religious context:
“Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if – or especially if – the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it’s not Rovian hardball he’s playing. More like Gandhian hardball.”
Or, since Gandhi was profoundly influenced by Jesus, we might say Obama is practicing Christ-ian hardball.
|
Previous Posts
Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety.
But mostly deep, deep gratitude.
How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create
posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o
posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 |
read full post
»
My Big News
Dear Readers,
This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999.
In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the
posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009
BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE
New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re
posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
Secularizing the Cross (Christian Activists: Be Careful What You Wish For)
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week, in Buono v. Salazar, about whether a white 6 1/2 foot cross can be displayed in a national park as a tribute to World War I soldiers. Though it's depicted as a classic clash of the secular and the religious, it actually illustrates why Christian act
posted 1:15:51pm Oct. 08, 2009 |
read full post
»
|
