The news of a first bipartisan brainstorming session on Tuesday reflects a dramatic shift in White House strategy and substance according to the New York Times. But, after a year of one-party rule, secret sessions, and political pay-offs in return for legislative votes, it is highly unlikely that the proclaimed change will transform politics and policy-making in Washington.
The President’s motivation to announce this change is easy to explain. He appears to be adjusting his leadership stance so he can successfully advance health care reform. Confrontation and exclusion have not worked for Barack Obama. Is the new “bipartisan” face real or a political set-up to pass Obama Care? And will the “shift” save this presidency?
The public is clearly angry with Washington. The president’s approval ratings continue to sink, and he failed to sway three high profile elections in solid Democrat states. In Massachusetts, Scott Brown became the 41st Republican vote in the Senate – a stunning blow to the president’s agenda. Support for Brown, the underdog, was extraordinary. It was hard to spin this one - the voters were against big government, big spending and deficits.
Yet public opposition is only part of the problem. The state of the country presents an unsettling story. The economy is far from fixed. A 10% unemployment rate remains a nagging issue as do staggering deficits, an unprecedented federal budget, and looming tax increases.
On November 2, my blog “Inclusive Leadership: Driving Change a Better Way” challenged the wisdom of the administration’s attacks against its perceived enemies. At that time, there was a growing distrust of government and a contentious debate about the number of jobs created by the stimulus. A majority of Americans were against a single payer health care system.
In striking contrast to the situation in Washington, evidence shows that in business, inclusive leadership produces superior results and better solutions. These leaders respect everyone’s ideas and demand transparency. They focus on what’s right instead of what advances their power or position. Their authenticity is clear and convincing.
Leaders who exclude important constituents often get into trouble. As of January 27, the day of the State of the Union, the president’s ambitious plan to transform the nation was not working. Mr. Obama said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on January 25: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”
But substantive results and trust make a president really good. Administrations need to develop sound policy that can be implemented without confusion, contention, and a mashup of unintended consequences. The president told Ms. Sawyer, “I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak.” He made this statement knowing that significant tax increases were part of the health care plan.
As the administration reaches out to engage the GOP, they need to listen to differences and create a constructive dialogue. A true win will produce substantive change – results that are broadly bipartisan. Any political tactic designed to pressure the opposition and make them look bad is a pyrrhic victory.
It’s unclear whether the proclaimed shift in strategy can generate substantive results. Leaders who make enemies embolden their antagonists along the way. It’s hard to start over, but worth the try if the outreach is sincere. I’m afraid that the president’s credibility is at risk if the move is just another political maneuver.
