The Great Mystery of the Obama Presidency


Walter Russell Mead argues that the Obama presidency needs a reset. He argues that Obama's instinct to split the difference keeps getting him the worst of both worlds: his allies feel let down, and his opponents are unappeased and press for more.

This repeated lunge for the sour spot -- the place where costs are high and benefits are low -- now seems to be a trademark of the President's decision-making style. On the left it is earning him Carter comparisons from people like Eric Alterman; on the right it means that despite his compromises and yielding of significant ground he continues to feed the incandescent hostility of his bitterest foes. Worst of all, it suggests to people abroad and at home that the way to manipulate this "split the difference", consensus-seeking President is to raise your demands. If you are going to get something like 50 percent of what you ask for, ask for twice as much as you really want. And with this Presidential style, the squeaking wheel gets the grease. Not surprisingly, all the wheels have begun to squeak.

Here is the paradox we face: The President is a consensus-seeker whose decision making style rewards polarization and a conciliator who loses friends without winning over enemies.

I agree with most of what Mead says in his long and thoughtful post, and I have been arguing along similar lines myself, but still I think his summing up is not quite right and there is a simpler way of putting it. Obama has not really been a consensus-seeker. Rather, he has acquiesced in compromise when he had to. Think the stimulus, health-care reform, the post-midterm tax deal, the new posture on the budget. The difference between leading the country to compromise and putting up with compromise when he has to is crucial. Obama has consistently failed to champion, before the fact and often even after the fact, the kind of agreements that he should have known at the outset were bound to be necessary. He stands aside, which diminishes him. And he gets no credit for the outcome, even when the outcome (as in those four cases) is nothing to be ashamed of.

Drop-down image credit: Reuters

The problem (as Mead in fact agrees) is not that Obama splits the difference. Presidents have no choice but to do that. And it is not (contra Mead) that Obama's particular compromises have in some way been systematically malformed. The problem is that basically good outcomes have lacked an early authoritative champion. Instead they have just emerged from an ugly political process that leaves the public thinking, "What a mess, what a failure, can't somebody take charge?" This was Clinton's strength, by the way. At critical points, he saw which way things were moving--the form of the compromise that would eventually have to be struck--and got in front of it.

Obama's consistent failure to do this not only leaves him looking weak and at the mercy of larger political forces. Sometimes, it also means that valuable opportunities are missed. Budget policy is the clearest instance. Bowles-Simpson, acting on the president's instructions, mapped out an intelligent course of action on long term deficit control. Obama failed to embrace it, and instead (maybe) is now being backed into it. If he had pressed early and hard for long term deficit reduction, he would not only have looked in command, he could also have advocated a bigger and bolder stimulus in the short term, which the economy could use.

What about the view that if Obama proposed compromise up-front, the Republicans would shift him just as far regardless--so he has to start well to the left of where he expects to end up? I see the logic, of course, but I don't buy it. I think it underestimates the power of Obama's advocacy, if he actually chose to deploy it in defense of sound, centrist positions. Obama's power of persuasion is no figment of the imagination. It got him elected and inspired the country when it needed a little inspiration. Now the country needs a little leadership. Why set the value of his talent at zero when it comes to governing, as opposed to campaigning? Yet this is what he has done. It is the great mystery of the Obama presidency.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Clive Crook is a senior editor of The Atlantic and a columnist for Bloomberg View. He was the Washington columnist for the Financial Times, and before that worked at The Economist for more than 20 years, including 11 years as deputy editor. Crook writes about the intersection of politics and economics. More

Crook writes about the intersection of politics and economics.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

The Time JFK Called the Air Force to Complain About a 'Silly Bastard'

51 years ago, President John F. Kennedy made a very angry phone call.

Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus


Adventures in Legal Weed

Colorado is now well into its first year as the first state to legalize recreational marijuana. How's it going? James Hamblin visits Aspen.


What Makes a Story Great?

The storytellers behind House of CardsandThis American Life reflect on the creative process.


Tracing Sriracha's Origin to Thailand

Ever wonder how the wildly popular hot sauce got its name? It all started in Si Racha.


Where Confiscated Wildlife Ends Up

A government facility outside of Denver houses more than a million products of the illegal wildlife trade, from tigers and bears to bald eagles.


Is Wine Healthy?

James Hamblin prepares to impress his date with knowledge about the health benefits of wine.


The World's Largest Balloon Festival

Nine days, more than 700 balloons, and a whole lot of hot air



More in Politics

Just In