Look Alive!

How Hill Republicans can work -- if briefly -- with President Obama.

By Jon Henke,  November 11, 2008

Advice offered to one’s opponent usually reflects one’s own desires more than the interests of your opponents. Democratic bloggers have coined a term — "Concern Troll" — for those who offer this kind of “poisoned apple [advice] to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.” It's a valid point, and it works both ways.

Of course, President Obama won’t be terribly interested in policy advice from those of us on the Right, and it would be an exercise in vanity for us to give it. In most areas, our policy premises and priorities are just too divergent. President Obama will set his own agenda, and the Right can only hope to shape it by making parts of the path harder … or easier. Rather than giving advice to President Obama on the policies he should offer, I would advise Congressional Republicans to take Obama up on some of his offers … and quickly, lest the opportunity slip away.

There are two areas of shared values and parallel goals where Obama might be interested in working with Republicans. For Republicans, these areas present a unique — and brief — opportunity.

 

• Senator Obama has demonstrated a reasonable interest in transparency reform, even working with Senator Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Indeed, the Progressive coalition that organized behind Obama is also very committed to transparency … at least, rhetorically.

• Likewise, Senator Obama has frequently claimed support for PAYGO, to “require any new increases in discretionary spending to be offset by a reduction in other areas of spending.” (Unfortunately, he’s also tried to walk that back on more than one occasion.) However, one presumes there is a genuine interest in reducing the deficit.

For a very brief period after President Obama takes office, there will be an alignment of political interests.

• Republicans philosophically support federal transparency and responsible budgeting — at least, they are supposed to; theory and practice have diverged in recent years.

• Democrats have marketed themselves as supporters of transparency and responsible budgeting — at least, they claim to; theory and practice will diverge in coming years.

Democrats will briefly be motivated (by their idealist grassroots) to support these policies in order to avoid alienating their movement. Republicans might briefly be motivated (by idealism, but also by shame) to support these policies in order to begin rebuilding their credibility as an effective vehicle for conservative and limited government ideals.
 
The right should encourage President Obama — and Congressional Democrats — to follow through on those two interests by extending transparency and accountability measures throughout the federal budget, and by re-instituting PAYGO.

However, there will only be a very brief window to do that. Whatever Senator Obama has claimed, President Obama will have very different interests. The new Democratic administration and Congress will act according to their own incentives, just as Republicans did in the past.

The election of Obama did not empower people. It empowered politicians.

What’s more, the culture of Washington makes it difficult to work together, even when it is in the interest of both sides to do so. Unfortunately, the most common approach to shared interests is to pursue them in ways that might cripple one’s opponents. The goal, too often, has become not to enact important reforms, but to enact only those parts of reform that help you or hurt the other side. Perhaps even worse is the tendency of both parties to use bipartisan agreement as a Trojan Horse for more controversial policies, or to use bipartisan leverage to bank partisan points for future campaigns with “messaging amendments” and poison pills. If you vote against the Precious Children Act of 2009 because you disagree with the “$5 billion Pork-a-go-go Amendment”, you’ll be looking at campaign ads that “Why did Congressman Doe vote against our Precious Children? Why would you vote for a Congressman who hates the Precious Children?” (Note to Republicans: Don’t play the martyr when that happens to you. That’s what you did to John Kerry on troop funding.)

The longer Democrats are in power, the farther they will drift from their initial agenda and ideals. Democrats may genuinely believe in transparency and PAYGO, but the institutional incentives — re-election, coalition management, peer pressures, horse-trading, and the maintenance of power — are more powerful. Like Republicans, Democrats will quickly abandon ideals that might compromise their political power.

Hope and Change got people on board the Democratic bus. Political convenience will throw them under it.

My advice to any who would take it: live up to your ideals quickly, while you still can. The consequences of doing otherwise will ultimately be far worse than the benefits of political convenience. Just ask the Republican Party … whatever remains of it.

Jon Henke is a web strategist and a founding editor of The Next Right.