WILLIAM GALSTON NOVEMBER 12, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Only brain-dead populists believe that the people are always right. Still, in a representative democracy, elected officials who want to remain in office and get something done should listen carefully to what the people are saying. All the more so for a president challenged to reorient his administration after a devastating rebuke.
Two recent surveys should help President Obama chart a new path for the next two years.
A just-released Pew survey finds that 55 percent of respondents want Republican leaders in Washington to “try as best they can to work with Barack Obama to accomplish things, even if it means disappointing some groups of Republican supporters.” Only 38 percent disagreed. Conversely, 62 percent want Obama to work hard to cooperate with Republicans, even if it means disappointing some of his supporters.
A recent bipartisan survey—a collaboration between Democracy Corps and Resurgent Republic—mirrors this finding and offers additional insights. By a margin of 67 to 26, the people want president Obama to work harder to find common ground with Republicans rather than simply holding fast to his own agenda. By a margin of 60 to 36, they endorsed the proposition that “Congressional Republicans should be more willing to work with President Obama to find solutions” over the contrary proposition that “Congressional Republicans should do even more to stop President Obama’s agenda because his proposals would irrevocably harm America.”
On closer examination, two points stand out. First, substantial majorities of both independents and swing voters endorse both propositions. Second, while 73 percent of Democrats think that congressional Democrats should be more willing to work with congressional Republicans, only 30 percent of Republicans think that congressional Republicans should be more willing to work with Obama, while 65 percent of Republicans think that they should do even more to stop the president’s agenda. The bottom line: While Democrats and independents want conciliation and compromise, Republicans don’t.
So Obama faces a win-win situation. If he extends his hand to the opposition and they spurn it, the independents and swing voters whose views will determine the 2012 election will give him credit for doing what they want while coming down hard on Republican obstructionists. If the Republicans grasp his outstretched hand, then the country might actually make some progress. And by a margin of 49 to 30, the people think that the president—not congressional Republicans—should take the lead.
To be sure, many of the president’s supporters will be disappointed—at least at first. While 44 percent of Democrats believe that “in order to win in the future, the Democratic Party must move more to the center . . . to win over independent voters,” 50 percent disagree, arguing that their party needs to be more supportive of its core principles. But 57 percent of swing voters and 62 percent of independents, who moved sharply toward Republicans between 2008 and 2010, endorse the former course over the latter. If President Obama makes the right strategic choice, he can help himself and the country. And despite its misgivings, it’s hard to believe that his party wouldn’t benefit as well.
15 comments
"[T]he independents and swing voters whose views will determine the 2012 election will give him credit for doing what they want while coming down hard on Republican obstructionists." This hypothesis has already been falsified in the case of health care reform. A strategy of total obstruction, especially on the part of Republicans in the Senate, yielded great political rewards in the form of a rabidly energized base and widespread skepticism about the reform which was "Rahm-ed through" Congress. It is abundantly obvious that Galston does not read the magazine he writes for.
- subterran
November 12, 2010 at 8:19am
The "center" to which we should move is really all about jobs, and the related concern of the middle class about its economic security. We need some bills that address these things, and we need the President to get out in front and hold Repubs accountable if they continue to obstruct. The "center" isn't about tax cuts for the top 2%. As anyone can tell you, the top 2% of any distribution are nowhere near the center.
- purcellneil
November 12, 2010 at 8:28am
Isn't this the same strategy Obama has been trying for the past two years? It hasn't worked out the way you're predicting. There are several examples where Obama has moved toward the center and the republicans still said no, and voters aren't savvy enough to blame the republicans for that, they just care about results. If the economy is hurt by the republicans rejecting Obama s proposed compromises, my guess is the voters still blame Obama. I wish you were right but I don't think you are- voters don't always vote the way you'd predict based on polls like this.
- tysonsahib
November 12, 2010 at 8:50am
What was it that the President said to Senator McCain two years ago? 'Elections have consequences.' The President will not push around the Republicans like he did two years ago. I think the Republican strategy will be to ignore the President and push their legislation. If he uses his veto powers that will hgihlight differences, if not then it's bipartisian. The House has a lot more power than they have had in years.
- CRS9TNR
November 12, 2010 at 10:14am
I don't agree with any of this. Democrats are in this position because of a failure to communicate with independents. Our whole agenda has been misrepresented by the Republicans and we've done nothing to counter. From a pros and cons view our policies make sense, we've done a terrible job of communicating the pros, all they've heard are the cons. We need to act like Democrats and learn how to bring the public along. To back away from this right-wing Republican health care plan is ridiculous. We all know that it should have gone much, much more to the left. If the public really understood health care economics then there would be much more support for change. Our health care system is a ticking time-bomb so to move to the center and just ignore it like the Republicans is ridiculous. At this rate we have to wait five more years until 100 million are uninsured and discontent is harder to ignore than it is now. We also need to appreciate that timing matters. I'm extremely distraught by our lack of communications skills. The Republicans are running a big money PR campaign and it's working well. Rove laughs at how incompetent we are in trying to present our program. Until we prove otherwise we are idiots.
- turntxblue
November 12, 2010 at 10:43am
'from a pros and cons view our policies make sense' - poor assumption, and part of the tin ear Dems are/were suffering from. Probably should have gone single-payor/public option or bust on HC, as you point out later, in contradiction to your earlier statement. Even if controversial, at least it would have been worth the risk.
- ds111
November 12, 2010 at 11:02am
There is very little that the average voter could identify as a concession from the administration on any of the big issues. I believe a big part of the problem is that the administration doesn't take easily identifiable stances that they can then step back from. The stances they take are either too detailed to register with voters, or are too moderate to begin with (so that compromising on them means gutting the policy). If Obama had declared a strong preference for a single payer system he could have then backed off of that and given a speech saying that in the interest of bipartisanship he was compromising on what he wanted. Instead he said he was open to all options, and had basically compromised before the discussions began. This approach would not have gained any Republican votes (not the point of it), but it would have shown voters that he is compromising. A similar thing could be done now with the Bush tax cuts. The administration could push for a tax cut that does not offer a tax break to anyone who makes over $250,000 (so no tax cuts for the first $250,000 of someone making $275,000). The compromise would then be to allow the rich to get the break on the first $250,000 they make. Obama comes to the table with the compromises built in, and so he gets no credit for them in the public's mind.
- Attrill
November 12, 2010 at 11:40am
Mr. Galston: Adam Serwer at WaPo strongly disagrees with you: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/bipartisanship_is_irrelevant.html
- mg81992
November 12, 2010 at 12:01pm
Wow, Mr. Galston continues on his perfect predictions. Not. Serwer is right in this case. Whenever Galston makes a broad proclamation, expect the opposite.
- tnmats
November 12, 2010 at 12:23pm
This headline seemed kind of dirty to me.
- subterran
November 12, 2010 at 2:26pm
"Still, in a representative democracy, elected officials who want to remain in office and get something done should listen carefully to what the people are saying. All the more so for a president challenged to reorient his administration after a devastating rebuke." Well, how the above truism bears relevance to the current circumstances depends on how you interpret 'what the people are saying.' You are you going to listen to more, the millions of independents who flipped their votes from D to R between '08 and '10 or the likely greater millions of solid D voters who sat this one out as a direct consequence of the current administration's anemic, incoherent leadership?
- AaronW
November 12, 2010 at 5:21pm
Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility for excluding the GOP from the stimulus, and that is how the rest of the narrative went, regardless of what Obama did. really a bizarro world where the liberals mirror the conservatives in blog comments (we must be MORE ____, NO compromise!). which is why the Independents keep changing the House.
- K2K
November 12, 2010 at 5:50pm
what's so bizzarro about it, K2? the strategy sure seems to be working for the conservatives.
- AaronW
November 12, 2010 at 6:14pm
i am looking at McCain and Feingold. McCain almost got canned for capitulating to Democrats and Feingold is gone. I don't think we can accuse these two gentlemen of not reaching across the aisle enough, unless the cited polls are not in their states.
- Nusholtz
November 12, 2010 at 8:45pm
AaronW: "what's so bizzarro about it, K2? the strategy sure seems to be working for the conservatives." sort of - the GOP is having their own internal fight over how to win elections because it is the Independent voters who swing back and forth, who tend to be more frightened by big government deficit spending than the morality police. The congressional map favors the center-right. Because both parties get increasingly ideologically defined by their extremes, the only way to stop BOTH parties is to keep flipping the House until the entrenched parties get the message. which may be never. or a third party will emerge, just like Lincoln's Republican Party emerged to kill off the Whigs. Look at all the recent parliamentary democracy elections that failed to produce a decisive majority. UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Iraq are examples that come to mind. something is going on.
- K2K
November 13, 2010 at 12:55pm