A Two-Year Plan for Washington: End Gridlock

A Two-Year Plan for Washington: End Gridlock

Regardless of the Senate makeup, Americans want to see compromise. Here’s how to get there.

By William A. Galston in the Wall Street Journal

 

A White House aide once walked into the Oval Office and handed President Lyndon Johnson a very progressive draft of soon-to-be-proposed legislation. LBJ perused the document, then looked up at the aide and said, “Do you want an issue or do you want a bill?”

As this column goes to press, the polls are still open in most states. I won’t forecast the result, but I will make a prediction: Once the dust settles on the 2014 midterm election, both political parties will have to face LBJ’s question.

It is clear which answer the American people prefer. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released on the eve of the election found that 36% named “ending gridlock and getting things done” as either the first or second most important matters determining their vote, behind only job creation and economic growth and far ahead of such concerns as government spending, health care, entitlements and the Islamic State threat.

Some party leaders seem to be getting the message. In an interview with CNN, Vice President Joe Biden said flatly, “We’re ready to compromise,” and predicted that a Republican-controlled Senate would be too. Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said that a Republican Senate takeover would finally give his party a chance to make its case to the American people. In a pre-election interview, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell ticked off tax reform and trade as areas where Republicans and Democrats could find common ground. In private conversations, some Republicans looking ahead to 2016 add immigration reform to the list.

Few relish the prospect of repeating 2012, when the GOP’s ham-handed treatment of immigration reform yielded a historic drubbing of the party’s presidential nominee by Latino voters. And finally getting something done would help Republicans shed their image as the unbending “party of no,” which has driven their public approval to record lows.

The White House has something to gain as well. After years of gridlock, Barack Obama ’s standing with the people is not far above that of George W. Bush at a similar stage of his presidency. A White House that is serious about compromise on long-stalled issues could finish strong and burnish President Obama’s legacy, about which he is bound to be increasingly concerned as the end approaches.

If the political logic of compromise is so compelling, why is it reasonable to fear that it won’t prevail? The answer: Both parties have promised their bases that they will follow the path of confrontation on hot-button issues. Given what Sen. McConnell has said so often about the Affordable Care Act, it is hard to see how he could avoid allowing a vote for full repeal early in the 114th Congress. And he will be under great pressure not to move forward on most of the president’s judicial nominees.

President Obama is in a similar bind. After years of self-inflicted wounds on immigration reform, he is poised to issue a sweeping executive order that will test the limits of legislative authority. The resulting Republican backlash could doom new legislative efforts for the rest of his term.

Assuming that the Republicans take over the Senate, the ball will be in the president’s court. For what it’s worth, here is the play I would diagram:

Soon after the election results are known, Mr. Obama should appear before the media to make a serious statement about the next two years. After underscoring the people’s impatience with endless partisan bickering, he should make clear his commitment to ending it by declaring his willingness to meet the Republicans halfway on long-stalled issues. To that end, he should invite the Republican leaders to the White House for substantive talks about the way forward.

If the president does anything of the sort, no doubt a collective shudder would ripple through the Democratic base, as it did when Mr. Obama abortively pursued compromise in 2011. To avert a revolt, he would have to make clear that he is in no mood to surrender—and that in the interest of letting the legislative process work, he is prepared to defer confrontational executive action for a few months, but not indefinitely. If Republican leaders capitulate to their base, the president should say, he will use the power of the Oval Office to get things done because an uncompromising Republican Party left him no choice. He might add that the Constitution gives him veto power that he is prepared to use if partisan legislation reaches his desk.

Still, Mr. Obama would face a political challenge. In today’s partisan polarization, compromise requires much more than splitting the difference. It means accepting packages that omit some things your supporters intensely care about—and that includes some things you regard as bad public policy.

One thing is clear: If Congress and the White House waste the next two years, the way they’ve wasted the past four, the American people’s frustration will turn to anger, setting the stage for a truly ugly presidential contest in 2016.

 

Posters comment:  What do we do if “they” don’t end gridlock?