On tax cuts, pragmatism vs. principle

Question: In a high-stakes game of political chicken, President Obama appears to have bowed to Republican threats to block the extension of tax cuts to the middle class--and all other legislation--unless a similar tax cut for high-income households was also included. Is this realistic bipartisan compromise after a sobering election, or is it a sign of weak leadership?

The following responses come from six of the fellows that make up the Coro San Francisco 2011 class.



Eat your vegetables

I wouldn't call President Obama's leadership weak, I think its more akin to bad parenting. The president promised change in Washington; and to his credit, he tried to build bipartisan support even when Democrats could have forced through a lot more legislation than they did. Unfortunately, like a parent with the noble intention of getting their child to eat vegetables, the president conceded way to much power as he begged and pleaded with Republicans to eat his 'healthy' vegetables. Republicans learned the wrong message and have begun to refuse to eat anything, even delicious nuclear arms treaties that usually have been easy bipartisan morsels that everyone could swallow.

Now that Republicans have grown up and become rebelling teenagers (by taking control of the House), it remains to be seen if the president can firm up his parenting skills and get Washington back on track. What the Republicans seem to forget is that the president can take away their car keys and ground them with his veto pen. If you thought we were playing political "chicken" before, the president's veto pen could force Republicans to show their hand and either start cooperating a little more or see how long the president can hold out. I still have faith that the president is not a weak leader and that, once he stops trying to be the bipartisan peacemaker, he will hit his stride. Another serving of vegetables for me, please! -- Galen Wilson



A pragmatic compromise

Democrats will continue to argue that President Obama's willingness to compromise with Republicans over the Bush-era tax cuts demonstrates timid leadership and surrender. What they fail to take into account, however, is the full scope of what this compromise might mean. Yes, tax cuts will likely be temporarily extended for the wealthy, contradicting traditional liberal ideology. Yes, it will signal a victory for Republicans right after a major win in the November elections. But no, it doesn't necessarily mean that the president is a weak leader.

Let's consider why. First, the compromise currently being worked out will avoid comprehensive tax increases for all Americans and the expiration of long-term unemployment insurance for more than 2 million individuals at year's end. While Democratic politicians might have applauded President Obama if he chose not to compromise, the president would have to explain to millions of middle-class and unemployed Americans why he chose not to compromise for their sake. For these individuals, the president's penchant for compromise (and for protecting their wallets) certainly won't seem like weakness.

Second, there are two other major pieces of legislation on the table during this lame-duck session of Congress: the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the ratification of the new START treaty. With little time left in this session, quick passage of tax-cut legislation will give legislators more time to negotiate on these issues. It will also give Democrats more room to ask for compromise from their fellows across the aisle. If these pieces of legislation fail to get the necessary attention now, Democrats will have a much tougher time getting them passed once the newly elected Republicans take their seats next year. But if the president manages to get them through before January, they will represent two significant victories, and perhaps a net overall victory for the Democrats despite unforgiving circumstances.

Ultimately, the president must ask himself if he is willing to allow the Democrats' principled intransigence to trump pragmatic legislative decisions. In this case, he seems to have answered no. -- Amir Badat



Facing reality

With the economy in the state that it is currently, the reality is that Americans are in need of immediate relief--not partisan balking. The president has a broad legislative agenda and Republicans have expressed a vitriolic distaste for cooperating with his administration since he took office. Now that Republicans will overtake the House in the upcoming session, there will be even less room for compromise and cooperation. That is another reality. In light of this situation, much like Amir notes, it's imperative that he take advantage of the remaining days in this session to push as much of his agenda through as possible. There simply is not enough time to engage Republicans in rhetorical grandstanding.



This also could serve to the Democratic Party's advantage in the long run. If Democrats can muster the discipline to develop a solid communications infrastructure by 2012, they can capitalize on this opportunity to label Republicans as fervent defenders of the rich. -- Eric Sanabria



Leading beyond survival

When politics is described as a "game of chicken", we identify it as shallowly confrontational and focused on leveraging advantage in the interest of power-building for its own sake. There is no demand for constructive policy-making or even good governance, just winning. After all, those who "win" a game of chicken have done little more than survive and often at the expense of spectators and participants alike. Under such a regime, "realistic bipartisan compromise" on anything beyond bills appealing to platitudes is perhaps impossible, but only because we have made it so.

Former Republican Congressman Jim Walsh, among others, recently called into question the leadership abilities of President Obama. "He didn't have to do the negotiating, the horse-trading, that a Mitch McConnell would have grown up on, or a Harry Reid would have grown up on." It is an argument that strongly identifies with the idea that President Obama's lack of political experience has contributed to him bowing to Republican threats, and it suggests that his hesitance to use political power to "negotiate" more favorable terms is a sign of weak leadership. The problem with this way of thinking is that it is as hypocritical of those who lament "politics as usual" as it is representative of the kind of one-dimensional figure that has come to dominate the American political scene. Sadly, I suspect it is a lesson Obama will learn despite his best efforts to the contrary. -- Edit Ruano



Speak up and compromise

Obama's leadership weakness is not in his willingness to compromise. Rather, it is his apparent inability to help the Democrats find strong voice with which to frame policy discussions. The Democrats had an opportunity to tell a story about the tremendous pain that withholding the unemployment extensions could cause to millions, pain which the Republicans were willing to inflict it in order to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet the debate about this policy largely became centered on tax policy and the deficit, minimizing the potential political risk to Republicans who took an absolutist position to force Obama to capitulate.

Obama has an unparalleled communication platform and exceptional oratory skills. He proved on the campaign trail that, armed with a clear message, he can drive a national narrative. The Democrats desperately need his leadership in this area. Even without the presidency, Republicans often still guide the debate on major policy questions. To be an effective leader, Obama needs to help his party clearly share their views with the American people, and he should begin by using the power of his own voice. Doing so does not eliminate the possibility of bipartisan compromise. It means that one side would no longer be able to hold the other hostage while still framing the terms of the negotiation. -- Matthew Podolin

By Coro Fellows | December 7, 2010; 8:22 AM ET

Category: Accomplishing Goals , Congressional leadership , Crisis leadership , Economic crisis , Government leadership , Making mistakes , Managing Crises , Political leadership , Presidential leadership , Self-Sacrifice Save & Share:

Previous: Compromise is king | Next: Obama needs to take a stand

Posted by: katie6 | December 12, 2010 11:15 AM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: clary916 | December 10, 2010 2:49 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Jimmie5 | December 9, 2010 2:01 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | December 9, 2010 9:01 AM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Tim32 | December 9, 2010 8:05 AM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: iachol01 | December 8, 2010 4:55 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: esanabria20 | December 8, 2010 4:13 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Airborne82 | December 8, 2010 1:22 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | December 8, 2010 9:06 AM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: galenwilson | December 7, 2010 5:58 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: bystander1344 | December 7, 2010 1:06 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: porkbellies37 | December 7, 2010 12:56 PM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: stormpost | December 7, 2010 11:27 AM

Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: morristhewise | December 7, 2010 11:05 AM

Report Offensive Comment