Barack Obama: Reforms at the Price of Compromise
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 11 February 2010
by Sylvain Cypel (link to original)
(France) on 11 February 2010
by Sylvain Cypel (link to original)
Translated from
by Joshua Bowling.
Edited by Jessica Anderson.
Is Barack Obama, who has been on the defensive for several weeks, on the verge of employing a new technique? On Tuesday, 9 February, the American president set apart his day for searching for a compromise with the Republican opposition on healthcare reform and the employment stimulus. He ordered his party to advance on the path towards “bipartisanship.” Elected Democrats are begged to find a middle ground with their adversary. Mr. Obama asked them to “set aside internal disagreements for the good of the nation.”
The Senate had adopted a bill supporting employment. However, the head of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Harry Reid, immediately rallied against it while announcing the vote in Congress on the text of the law, which is due by the end of the week.
Mr. Obama listed themes where compromise appeared conceivable: employment, health insurance, foreign trade, energy and the fight against public deficits. “I am just an eternal optimist and so it’s the right thing to do. And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what’s right for the country and assume that over time people, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth,” he said Tuesday, concerning his meeting with representatives of both parties.
He also recalled the other pillar on which his “bipartisan” philosophy rests: always preferring to adopt reform rather than abstaining from it, even if it is far from his initial ambitions. Up until now, one couldn’t say that this attitude has been politically profitable for Mr. Obama. The Republican tactics consisting of “paralyzing” every initiative that was important to the White House has borne fruit. Each time, the administration has had to withdraw. Additionally, the Democrats lost a key senatorial election in Massachusetts on 19 January. Worse, the current polls regarding the Democrats are unfavorable. The Republicans suffer less from their “obstructionism” than Mr. Obama from his paralysis.
Yet, at the risk of further alienating the far left of his party, Mr. Obama persists and even accentuates his “bipartisanship” because they also know how to analyze the polls. Of course, public opinion erodes but sometimes emits contradictory signals, as is often the case in times of crisis.
Thus, the loss of a qualified majority in the Senate (60 seats) following the party’s defeat in Massachusetts is perceived as a “good thing” by 57 percent of Americans. However, 60 percent judges that the Republicans are not compromising enough, while 63 percent hopes that Congress passes an agreement on health insurance.
It’s on this trend that the White House relies. It appears convinced that it will prove beneficial and that eventually, opinion, save the extreme right, will reject Republican obstruction if it persists.
This is why the president recently proposed a common debate between the two parties at the White House on healthcare reform, each “bringing its ideas” to better assure medical coverage for the population while reducing costs. The proposed debate will be televised live on 25 February. Republicans have imposed conditions yet they have done nothing to wreck the initiative.
The case for the reduction of public debts is also symptomatic. At the beginning of February, Mr. Obama called upon senators to work together on the issue. Republicans demonstrated strong reluctance at first but they were unable to oppose it head-on. In effect, this theme is at the heart of their denouncements of the government’s “wasteful spending.” On Tuesday, the head of the Republican minority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, had to accept the principle of a bipartisan commission.
The same goes for employment: Mr. Obama is taking a bet that the number of Republicans, frightened of overflow to the right by the ultraconservative fringe, which could end up harming them, won’t risk themselves by refusing all cooperation during an acute crisis. Mr. McConnell has previously said that there was “a chance” that they’ll support a Democratic bill, once amended.
Within the Democratic Party, many judge the presidential bipartisan gamble as without a future. “We've seen progress but still not success,” estimates Steny Hoyer, leader of the Democratic majority in the House.
Several Republican participants in the meeting with the president have already said that they refuse to participate in a live, televised debate. During the meeting, Mr. Obama told them that his plan contained a number of incontrovertible red lines. “Bipartisanship,” he explained, “cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That's not how it works in any other realm of life.”
The Senate had adopted a bill supporting employment. However, the head of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Harry Reid, immediately rallied against it while announcing the vote in Congress on the text of the law, which is due by the end of the week.
Mr. Obama listed themes where compromise appeared conceivable: employment, health insurance, foreign trade, energy and the fight against public deficits. “I am just an eternal optimist and so it’s the right thing to do. And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what’s right for the country and assume that over time people, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth,” he said Tuesday, concerning his meeting with representatives of both parties.
He also recalled the other pillar on which his “bipartisan” philosophy rests: always preferring to adopt reform rather than abstaining from it, even if it is far from his initial ambitions. Up until now, one couldn’t say that this attitude has been politically profitable for Mr. Obama. The Republican tactics consisting of “paralyzing” every initiative that was important to the White House has borne fruit. Each time, the administration has had to withdraw. Additionally, the Democrats lost a key senatorial election in Massachusetts on 19 January. Worse, the current polls regarding the Democrats are unfavorable. The Republicans suffer less from their “obstructionism” than Mr. Obama from his paralysis.
Yet, at the risk of further alienating the far left of his party, Mr. Obama persists and even accentuates his “bipartisanship” because they also know how to analyze the polls. Of course, public opinion erodes but sometimes emits contradictory signals, as is often the case in times of crisis.
Thus, the loss of a qualified majority in the Senate (60 seats) following the party’s defeat in Massachusetts is perceived as a “good thing” by 57 percent of Americans. However, 60 percent judges that the Republicans are not compromising enough, while 63 percent hopes that Congress passes an agreement on health insurance.
It’s on this trend that the White House relies. It appears convinced that it will prove beneficial and that eventually, opinion, save the extreme right, will reject Republican obstruction if it persists.
This is why the president recently proposed a common debate between the two parties at the White House on healthcare reform, each “bringing its ideas” to better assure medical coverage for the population while reducing costs. The proposed debate will be televised live on 25 February. Republicans have imposed conditions yet they have done nothing to wreck the initiative.
The case for the reduction of public debts is also symptomatic. At the beginning of February, Mr. Obama called upon senators to work together on the issue. Republicans demonstrated strong reluctance at first but they were unable to oppose it head-on. In effect, this theme is at the heart of their denouncements of the government’s “wasteful spending.” On Tuesday, the head of the Republican minority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, had to accept the principle of a bipartisan commission.
The same goes for employment: Mr. Obama is taking a bet that the number of Republicans, frightened of overflow to the right by the ultraconservative fringe, which could end up harming them, won’t risk themselves by refusing all cooperation during an acute crisis. Mr. McConnell has previously said that there was “a chance” that they’ll support a Democratic bill, once amended.
Within the Democratic Party, many judge the presidential bipartisan gamble as without a future. “We've seen progress but still not success,” estimates Steny Hoyer, leader of the Democratic majority in the House.
Several Republican participants in the meeting with the president have already said that they refuse to participate in a live, televised debate. During the meeting, Mr. Obama told them that his plan contained a number of incontrovertible red lines. “Bipartisanship,” he explained, “cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That's not how it works in any other realm of life.”
Next article![]( "Sarah Palin Rouses a Revolution in the U.S.")
