MY COLLEAGUES had some bones to pick with Barack Obama's speech on Monday. "[I]f you believe that getting anything done in the next four years will require the support of at least some moderate Republicans, it is hard to see how Mr Obama's inaugural address will have helped much," says Lexington. My other colleagues agreed that the speech was "uncompromising", despite the fact that Mr Obama doesn't have the votes needed to ram through his agenda. Ian Bremmer offered this condensed version of the speech: "Together, we will pursue my objectives."

When viewed as a tactic to advance the president's agenda in Congress, the speech seemed unwise, as it likely hardened the resolve of the opposition. But are my colleagues ascribing to the president a goal he does not have? Perhaps Mr Obama's uncompromising tone was not a fault of the speech, but a deliberate provocation. Perhaps it is part of a broader, longer-term strategy that, far from seeking reconciliation with Republicans, aims to increase their rigidity until the force of public opinion breaks the party.

You can see why Mr Obama may be fed up with any talk of reconciliation. From his perspective, he has signed the largest tax cut in history, extended nearly all of the Bush tax cuts, adopted a Republican health-reform plan and continued the war-on-terror policies of his predecessor, with little or no Republican support along the way. In December he offered Republicans a compromise on the deficit only to see them walk off and double down on their obstinacy in the House. Republicans will have seen this all differently, in some cases more accurately, but there is little wonder why Mr Obama is no longer talking nice to the opposition.

Instead, perhaps the president has decided to play the long game, something he hinted at near the end of his inaugural address.