Obama the pragmatist must prevail
By Clive Crook 2010-03-04

Barack Obama is a puzzle. He is a skilful politician – he would not be in the White House otherwise – yet he has managed to dismay not only independent voters but also the liberal base of his own party. One can see that he was likely to disappoint one group or the other, but not both. How could the man with the nous to stop Hillary Clinton ever have let this happen?

Last week’s healthcare summit crystallised the answer. As a politician, he has a split personality.

In his domestic-policy heart, Mr Obama leans left, just as Republican sceptics always said. By conviction, he is no moderate. At the same time, he is pragmatic, an incrementalist, not one to let the best be the enemy of the good. He relishes frank and friendly discussion.

The key to Mr Obama is that both these personalities are real. It is not a case of his being a progressive who posed as a moderate (as conservatives say), or a flaccid centrist who pretended to have transformational ambitions (as many progressives have come to believe). His ambitions are genuinely progressive; his temperament is genuinely open-minded. It is a rare and confusing combination, and it explains a great deal.

On healthcare, he has sought the most progressive possible reform. Starting from scratch, he would have favoured a single-payer system such as “medicare for all”. But that was politically impossible.

Starting from here, he preferred a big, bold reform that includes a public option – a government-run insurance scheme to compete with private offerings. As it turned out, that was also too much, not just for Republicans, but for moderate Democrats, too. Again, therefore, the president was willing to compromise.

When he delegated healthcare reform to Harry Reid in the Senate and to Nancy Pelosi in the House, he was putting people he agrees with in charge. So far as public opinion goes, this was a grave tactical error, because voters distrust Congress and wanted Mr Obama to supervise. But it was true to his ambitions. Liberal Democrats wanted what he wanted. On the other hand, Mr Obama never sided unequivocally with progressives as the debate dragged on. He never closed the door to compromise. This was true to his pragmatic temperament.

Sadly for the president, the left objects to his pragmatism more than it applauds his ambitions, and the centre and right object to his ambitions more than they welcome his pragmatism.

The healthcare summit was an object lesson. From the Democrats’ point of view, by the way, it was a failure. The White House hoped to expose the Republicans as a party devoid of ideas, boost Democratic morale, and unify Democrats around a feasible plan. As it turned out, the Republicans acquitted themselves well. They stuck to a simple and superficially appealing line: greatly expanded coverage is unaffordable at present; better to go step by step, enacting smaller measures that command wider support.

The Democrats failed to shoot this down. The session did little for their morale or unity. Unified, they could pass comprehensive reform even now, all by themselves. The House just needs to vote for the unrevised Senate bill. But the party is too divided. Doubts remain over whether the Democrats can muster even simple majorities for comprehensive reform, supposing they use parliamentary manoeuvres to evade the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster rule.

Meanwhile, the summit exposed Mr Obama’s split personality in compelling detail. He was an effective and engaging chairman. Under difficult circumstances, he supervised an excellent conversation. With every appearance of sincerity, he said he looked for common ground and pressed the Republicans for steps they might all take together. But the reform he wants – and must now decide whether to pursue – is still a big bang, which Republicans oppose on principle.

He was willing to listen to the Republicans; but on the main point of difference – the scope of reform – he was never going to be persuaded. The first brings accusations of timidity from the left; the second brings accusations of hypocrisy from the centre and right.

This split personality – leftist convictions combined with a consensus-seeking temperament – threatens to cripple the Obama presidency. What should have been clear all along is now impossible to ignore: the US is to the right of Mr Obama on domestic policy. For his own views to prevail, he would need to shift the political centre. If this were even possible, it would require a muscular style of leadership he appears, so far, to have no taste for.

If he chooses instead to be guided by the country’s existing centre of gravity, he must recognise that the progressive wing of the Democratic party is not his ally but his enemy. Not only will he have to compromise, which he has already done; he will also have to champion compromise. He could do that well, if he chose to. The temperament then fits. But he could not do it without subordinating his own views, advocating more centrist solutions, and breaking with the left.

It is a call he will be unwilling to make. For the time being, expect further vacillation. The best hope for the Obama presidency may be the drubbing for Democrats in November that looks increasingly likely. Just as for Bill Clinton in 1994, this would make the president’s mind up for him. With weakened allies in Congress, he would have to be a centrist president or an outright failure.

作者:英国《金融时报》专栏作家 克莱夫•克鲁克 2010-03-04

巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)是个谜。他是个手腕高明的政界人士(否则进不了白宫),但他却弄得独立选民和自己所在党派的根基——自由派——都感到沮丧。人们可以设想他可能让一个阵营或另一个阵营失望,但不至于会让两个阵营都失望。此人既然具备击败希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的机智,怎么会让这种情况发生呢?






当他把医改任务托付给参议院的哈里•里德(Harry Reid)和众议院的南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)时,他是要让与他见解相同的人士来负责这件事。在公众舆论看来,这是一个严重的战术失误,因为选民不信任国会,希望奥巴马亲自督导此事。但这样的安排合乎他的雄心。民主党自由派与他志同道合。另一方面,在辩论相持不下时,奥巴马从未坚定地站在改革主义者的一边。他从不把妥协的门堵死。这合乎他的务实性格。








他不会愿意做出这样的抉择。目前人们可以预期看到更多的犹豫不决。假如民主党在11月选举中落败(这种可能性似乎越来越大),对奥巴马任期来说或许是最好的。正如比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton)在1994年的遭遇一样,这将为总统做出决定。当他在国会的盟友遭到削弱时,他将不得不成为一个中间派总统,否则就将一败涂地。