P resident Obama, one month into his presidency, finds himself torn between two opposing forces. During the campaign, he vowed to rid Washington of partisan strife, but now he must resort to one-party politics to revive the American economy. Instead of trying to woo Republicans to his side of the policy debate, Obama should focus on helping those people who have lost their jobs or have seen the value of their retirement accounts plummet. If that means abandoning his hopes of bipartisanship, so be it. This country has too much to lose if decisive action on the economy is not taken immediately.
There are, of course, very real dangers in relentlessly pursuing an agenda without any consideration of the opposition. Alienating the Republicans may hurt the administration down the road, when votes from Democrats won't suffice in passing a piece of legislation. And if the liberals appear to be ignoring the G.O.P., the 2010 midterm elections may see a strong backlash against the Democratic Party.
But, at this dire time, the Obama administration has no choice but to accept these potential consequences. This may be difficult for the man who campaigned on a platform of change, and who so strongly believed that Washington could be cleansed of the partisanship plague. Obama just might have been able to reform the politics of Washington, had he not inherited one of the worst financial emergencies since the Great Depression. He must display an ability to adapt by ignoring Republican objections at times, in favor of reviving the American economy.
This departure from bipartisanship may cause some disillusion among our generation; we helped propel Obama into the national spotlight and, eventually, into office. It's understandable that many will view the president as a hypocrite if he decides to pursue his economic agenda without appeasing the G.O.P. at all. Now ,however, is no time for idealistic rhetoric. A crisis of this magnitude requires real, tangible solutions.
As Peter Blair ("Informed Enthusiasm," Oct. 20, 2008) and Yang Wei Neo ("A Case for Apathy," Nov. 10, 2008) point out, Obama is no messiah. He will not be able to bring quick financial relief to the country while staying true to the ideals that got him elected. The sooner we embrace the need to reinvigorate our national workforce and stabilize our financial markets, the faster we can focus on other issues that can be discussed with more deference to bipartisanship before decisions need to be made.
By placing such a premium on consulting the opposition, Obama has effectively given the Republicans more power than was granted them by the American public. Millions of dollars were slashed from the stimulus package in an effort to please conservatives. Some of that money was allocated toward worthwhile programs -- ones benefiting education and alternative energy. By handing the reigns of debate over to the Republicans, Obama forfeited his political capital to satisfy a campaign promise. Even though the bill needed three votes from the Republican side to move on to joint debate, cutting millions of dollars in worthwhile investments was too great a sacrifice. If the administration determines a program to be crucial to the economic revival of this country, it should withstand the objections of Republicans. This holds true even if key votes are at stake.
At this critical juncture in his presidency, Obama must choose between temporarily abandoning talk of bipartisanship and appearing hypocritical, or nurturing a spirit of cooperation at the risk of accomplishing nothing. In most circumstances, cooperation would be the right course of action; extreme partisan politics does little good. Now, though, in the throes of a global economic crisis, President Obama and congressional Democrats should take command of revitalizing America's economy.
