Where Krugman Goes Wrong

(update below)

In a piece over at Slate, Paul Krugman expands on an argument he made in one of his recent New York Times columns. His argument, essentially, is that the Democratic party (and its presidential candidates) need to be more partisan:

But Bush will soon be gone. What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn't Bush bashing—what we need is partisanship. . . .

. . . if you look at peoples' views on actual issues, as opposed to labels, the electorate's growing liberalism is unmistakable. Don't take my word for it; look at the massive report Pew released earlier this year on trends in "political attitudes and core values." Pew found "increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies." Meanwhile, nothing's the matter with Kansas: People are ever less inclined to support conservative views on moral values—and have become dramatically more liberal on racial issues. . . .

The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America's new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles.

And that's where the continuing focus of many people on Bush, rather than the movement he represents, has become a problem.

A year ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a perceptive piece titled "Obama the anti-Bush," in which he described Barack Obama's appeal: After the bitter partisanship of the Bush years, Tomasky argued, voters are attracted to "someone who speaks of his frustration with our polarized politics and his fervent desire to transcend the red-blue divide." People in the news media, in particular, long for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years—a fact that probably explains the highly favorable coverage Obama has received.

But any attempt to change America's direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing. Proposals for universal health care, in particular, are sure to face a firestorm of partisan opposition. And fundamental change can't be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship.

He concludes with this:

So, here's my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.

That middle ground doesn't exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they'll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America's direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone.

With all due respect to Krugman (who does excellent work most of the time), I think this analysis is exceedingly simplistic and completely mischaracterizes who Barack Obama is and what it is he's selling. There's a tendency among Obama's detractors to characterize him as some sort of naive adherent to the David Broder cult of bipartisanship, someone who believes that all problems can be solved by sitting both sides down at the table and splitting the difference.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this caricature. First of all, it assumes that Obama is some sort of neophyte who doesn't understand how the system works or how hard it is to actually enact legislation. That assumption might make some sense if Obama were a military general or a business executive, i.e., a candidate with no real legislative experience. But Obama has served for over a decade as a legislator (the last three in the U.S. Senate); he's intimately familiar with the legislative process (and, by all accounts, quite skilled at working within it) and well aware of the obstacles any major progressive legislation will face. He's also, by all accounts, an incredibly intelligent, perceptive, and thoughtful person.

In other words, he's not David Broder. It seems to me that Obama's critics are interpreting his rhetoric at an absurdly literal level. Obama is a smart guy, a seasoned legislator, and a keen observer of the political process. He talks about transcending partisanship because he perceives--correctly I believe--that that's what much of the electorate, particularly the independents and swing voters who decide presidential elections, want to hear. As I wrote the other day:

The real trick in politics is to be strong, assertive, and demanding while appearing reasonable, conciliatory, and open to compromise. There is no question that, at times, you have to be willing to bear down and fight, but the rest of the time, it's far better to come across as a uniter, as someone who is willing to work with all sides to reach the right outcome.

If you look at Obama's career, you don't see a Broder-esque, split-the-difference pattern of legislating. Rather, you see someone with pretty standard liberal views on most issues who has tried to reach across the aisle on issues that don't break down along traditional partisan lines. Before Obama had even declared his candidacy, Hilzoy described his legislative style this way:

. . . I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle.

Obviously all problems cannot be solved this way. But this kind of bipartisanship is nevertheless constructive (and very different than Broder-style centrism). It helps establish relationships and trust with members of the opposition--which can be helpful when the big fights come--and it helps establish a reputation for reasonableness among the media and the public (which will also help when the big fights come).

Other than the party composition of Congress, the factor the most influences a president's ability to accomplish his legislative goals is his popularity, as measured both by his approval rating and (especially) by his margin of victory in elections. Obama understands this, which is why he tries so hard to project an image of reasonability.

I agree with those who say that the Democratic party needs to be more partisan, that it needs to be more willing to act like a party and present a more unified front in legislative battles. But politics at the presidential level is very different than politics at the Congressional level. A presidential candidate who comes across as strongly partisan is unlikely to do anything more than eek out a narrow victory, at best (thereby foreclosing any hope of achieving a real electoral mandate), and a president who is perceived to be strongly partisan is unlikely to enjoy anything more than a modestly favorable approval rating (thereby making it hard to pressure the opposition).

Krugman points out that an increasing majority of Americans support the progressive position on the major policy issues of our time. This is true, but it also overlooks the reality of presidential elections. To a degree that you just don't see in congressional elections, presidential elections hinge on perceptions of character. In 2004, polls showed that a majority of Americans sided with Kerry on most major issues (like they had with Gore in 2000). But, like 2000, a sizable contingent of voters--enough to swing the election--voted for George W. Bush based almost entirely on their perceptions of the candidates' characters. In 2000, Bush famously ran as a "uniter" and promised an end bitter partisanship, something that served him well among independent and swing voters. And in 2004, Bush repeatedly contrasted himself with his supposedly flip-flopping opponent, saying things like "you may not agree with me, but at least you know where I stand."

And it worked well. If you doubt that, just read this New York Times article from day after the election. It's full of infuriating quotes like this one:

Shannon Bangle, 31, a lawyer in Austin, Tex., said that he thought Mr. Bush falsely linked the war in Iraq to the terrorist attacks of 2001 and that Republican support for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was "ridiculous."

"The bottom line is I like Bush better as a person," Mr. Bangle said. "The president knows his strength. Visceral is a good word. At the end of the day, I have a strong sense of connection with this president."

And this:

"Bush doesn't let polls influence him," said Sandy Johnson, 45, who had just finished listening to Mr. Bush's victory speech on the radio in her home office in Carver County, Minn., which went overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. "Even when he makes decisions that may not be popular, even on security, he does it in the best interest of the country and he does what he thinks is right. So in a way, all of that comes down to integrity."

Ms. Johnson said she grew tired of the accusations that Mr. Kerry had "flip-flopped." Still, she said, "I came away from this thinking that Kerry lacked integrity. I wasn't sure what he believed. He needs to be everything to everybody around the world. You cannot say that about Bush, even if you don't agree with him."

These are the kind of voters who swing presidential elections. You have to do more than win the public over on the issues. That may be enough for congressional elections, but at the presidential level, many people are looking for something else. They're looking for someone whom they perceive to have the right kind of character to lead the country, someone they like and trust, someone whom they respect and feel respects them.

And here's the kicker. As Bush proved, it's possible to win over these voters even when they disagree with you on most issues. And therein lies the key to winning presidential elections by the type of margin necessary to create a real mandate for change.

One of Obama's true political gifts is the ability to make people feel that he respects their views even when he disagrees with them. That's a good skill to have both as a presidential candidate and as a president.

Obama's rhetoric about transcending partisanship is not a sign of naivete; it's clearly strategic. Obama is intelligent enough and experienced enough to know that things like health care reform are not going to be passed without an intense and drawn out legislative battle. But he perceives--correctly I believe--that to win that battle (and others like it), he needs to build up political capital now. He needs not only to win, but to win big, and you're just not going to do that with an intensely partisan message. You have to be able to reach out to people who are open to your ideas but who see themselves as independents or even Republicans. That's obviously what Obama is trying to do, and I wish people like Krugman--who are smart enough to see the potential wisdom in following such a strategy--would stop pretending that it is simply the equivalent of mindless centrism. It's not.

UPDATE: This is from Obama's speech this morning:

That’s the kind of change that’s more than just rhetoric – that’s change you can believe in.

It’s change that won’t just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.

I think this passage really encapsulates what I'm talking about. Broder-style "bipartisanship" is about having all the politicians sit down at a table and negotiating some split-the-baby "centrist" approach to all issues. What Obama is talking about, in large part, is reaching out to individual voters who are open to progressive ideas but, for whatever reason, identify themselves as independents or Republicans. The goal is to increase the coalition and build a mandate for change. And it's very hard to reach these voters if you are perceived to be intensely partisan. You have to cultivate a reputation for reasonability and independent-mindedness to be an effective presidential candidate and president. And that means engaging in strategic bipartisanship on certain issues and trying to build a reputation as someone who transcends petty partisanship. You don't have to compromise your ideals or sell out on policy goals; you just have to be a savvy campaigner and a legislator.