E. J. Dionne: Obama's Paradox Problem

[flpoljunkie]

Obama’s paradox problem

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: August 31

Call it the Party-of-Government Paradox: If the nation’s capital looks dysfunctional, it will come back to hurt President Obama and the Democrats, even if the Republicans are primarily responsible for the dysfunction.

Then there is the Bipartisanship Paradox: No matter how far the president bends over backward to appeal to or appease the Republicans — no matter how nice, conciliatory, friendly or reasonable he tries to be — voters will judge him according to the results. And the evidence since 2009 is that accommodation won’t get Obama much anyway.

This creates the Election Paradox: Up to a point, Republicans in Congress can afford to let their own ratings fall well below the president’s, as long as they drag him further into negative territory. If the president’s ratings are poor next year, Democrats won’t be able to defeat enough Republicans to take back the House and hold the Senate. The GOP can win if the mood is terribly negative toward Washington because voters see Obama as the man in charge.

Obama’s central task is to break out of the three paradoxes, not just to get reelected but also to get anything done. Having tried conciliation, his only alternative is to build pressure on the Republicans. He needs to get them to act, or, failing that, to make clear who is responsible for Washington’s paralysis.

That’s why his coming speech on jobs has to describe a program that’s broad and imaginative enough to capture the public’s attention. The middle-of-the-road voters his advisers want to win back look first for chief executives to be strong, decisive and principled, not at how many millimeters they are from the political center.

http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/newspics/calendar120910.pdf

[BeyondGeography]

1. The sickening feeling comes from the reality that he built his whole presidency around a falsehood

That he would be rewarded for reaching across the aisle.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Obama is an ideological man, and bipartisanship is all to him.

That is his whole goal, to be bipartisan, if it destroys the nation, that does not matter, for what matters is the ideology that he pushes, that the two Parties are exactly the same. That is one hell of a paradox when it comes time for a partisan election. How do you fight an opponent you insist is a partner, not a rival? How do you compromise in terms of picking a single winner?

[disillusioned73]

3. You are soooo right...

oh, the irony. I have come to hate "bipartisanship"..every time I here it now it comes off as just cover speak for - we are going to screw the majority of Americans and they won't even notice it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Democrats are always expected to strive for bipartisanship. Republicans aren't.

And until the Democrats stop buying into their own sense of inferiority, this double standard will persist.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. I think he is quite the opposite. He is apolitical and non-ideological. That's why he's in trouble.

He's under the illusion that everyone else is, too, particularly his enemies!