The final question at yesterday's White House press conference asked President Obama to respond to the "truism" that he doesn't "socialize enough."
Obama said he gets along well on a personal level with his rivals, including House Speaker John Boehner, but, "I think that really what's gone on in terms of some of the paralysis here in Washington, or difficulties in negotiations, just have to do with some very stark differences in terms of policy, some very sharp differences in terms of where we stand on issues."
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank isn't buying it.
It's tempting to wonder whether Obama could achieve more if he could establish personal connections with Republicans on Capitol Hill. [...]
"I like a good party," the president informed her after attesting to his "friendly guy" status. "Really what's gone on in terms of some of the paralysis here in Washington, or difficulties in negotiations, just have to do with some very stark differences in terms of policy."
That may be true, but until recent years, sharp disagreements were smoothed by personal ties.
Yes, and until recent years, we had two major, mainstream political parties, both of which had fringe elements, but neither of which had been radicalized.
And then things changed, at which point the efficacy of "smoothing sharp disagreements" through "personal ties" ended.
I liked Kevin Drum's take on this.
I continue to wonder what it will take to put a stake through the heart of this hoary Beltway meme. It's true that Obama isn't the schmooziest president in history, but how much evidence do you need to convince yourself that schmooziness simply isn't the problem here? ... Over the last four years, one thing has become crystal clear: the mere fact that Obama supports something almost guarantees united Republican opposition. Schmoozing doesn't matter. Golf dates don't matter. Invites to the White House bowling alley don't matter. Milbank implicitly admits as much, and yet he's still "tempted" to think that Obama could smooth things over if only he'd hoist a few more beers with Eric Cantor. After all, that kind of thing used to work.
This is magical thinking. The reason it doesn't work anymore isn't because Obama is insular. It doesn't work because the Republican Party has become a party of zealots. What does it take for DC columnists to finally admit that?
That last question need not be rhetorical. Over the last year or so, Ron Fournier, Jon Meacham, David Brooks, and Bob Woodward have all made the same argument: if Obama was better at "schmoozing," the breakdown in Washington policymaking would be less severe. Now, Milbank has joined the club.
The establishment can keep repeating the argument, but it won't improve with repetition.
As reader F.B. recently reminded me, the congressional GOP "has transformed itself from a loosely disciplined congressional party, to an almost lock-step parliamentary party. Add the effects of gerrymandering, subtract the lubrication of earmarks, and we end up with the present gridlock."
I know we just discussed this in detail last week, but it's worth reemphasizing that interpersonal outreach doesn't work because Republicans have reached an ideological extreme unseen in modern American history. It's a quantifiable observation, not a subjective one. Even if GOP policymakers were inclined to work with Obama, they realize that they'd be punished soon after by a primary challenge -- and they know this to be true because it's happened more than a few times in recent years (look up names like Crist, Specter, Bennett, Lugar, etc.).
Let's return to the thesis presented earlier this year by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein: "[W]e have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party."
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
"Until recent years, sharp disagreements were smoothed by personal ties"? Perhaps, but until recent years, presidents didn't have to deal with an entire political party that, statistically speaking, is the most ideologically extreme since the dawn of the modern American party system.
Obama has frequently adopted GOP measures as his own, in the hopes of advancing bipartisanship, only to find Republicans opposing their own proposals. Indeed, just last week, the president nominated a Republican for a top post in his cabinet, and the fiercest opposition is coming from -- you guessed it -- the GOP.
This isn't the kind of problem that can be remedied with backslapping and friendly chats.
As I've argued before, the notion that schmoozing will lead to progress rests upon the assumption that congressional Republicans are responsible officials, willing to negotiate and work in good faith, and prepared to find common ground with Obama. All they need is some face-time and presidential hand-holding. Once they can get along on a personal level, a constructive process will follow.
It's a pleasant enough fantasy, and I wish it were true, but everything we've seen over the last four years points to the limits of schmoozing. GOP leaders respond to unyielding primary voters, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, not interpersonal outreach from a president they've tried to undermine at every turn.
Leave a Comment:
So let me get this straight. You have reached one of the pinnacles of your journalism career , makings it into the Whitehouse press corps and this is the question you ask?
That the Republicans hate Obama and have no interest in socializing should be obvious to a journalism 101 student .
This is what passes for journalism in this country?
Sadly, there are many, many worse ones out there than Ol' Dana.
And Woodward want's to shine his twit credentials.
He invited them to the screening of "Lincoln" and none of them showed up.
Is the White House press corps the pinnacle of journalism? Taking notes from Dana Perino's stream of vocal incontinence counted as status?
The truth is that Obama has refrained from communicating with the GOP in a language it understands. In the last election, congressional districts that voted for Obama voted for a GOP representative- in many cases by large margins. The Obama campaign raised a billion on its campaign, meanwhile the Dem allies he would need in congress had to manage with cobbled together ramshackle campaign organisations starved of cash.
This was a very clear message to the GOP: progressives will not unite to challenge you with their power in your district. You are free to take hostages and have Milbank, Brooks, and Woodward lecturing the president about how the President needs to send out for pastries and Starbucks and chat it up more with the hostage takers. Simultaneously the are being told a gun will not be held to their heads in their own districts.
Sam Stein and others have speculated that perhaps Obama will go to an outside game in his second term. If Organizing for America's upcoming conference during the inauguration does not redeploy OFA to the battleground house and Senate races for 2014, it will be a very very strong message to the GOP.
Let's hope the President communicates more clearly to the GOP.
Milbank is an idiot.
Sick-n-effin-tired: So let me get this straight. You've got a bone to pick, & this is the best you can come up with? Weak. Very weak.
No no- Milbank is a very very serious person.
What the DC elites are attempting to educate this boy about is that what we have here is a classic failure to communicate. It is the meme that Obama is a lazy simpleton who doesn't get how DC really works: The reason why Obama's attempts in his first term at playing the inside game of schmooze did not work was that he did not bend over far enough. Woodward attempts to make this case in his book on the 2011 debt ceiling fiasco. Woodward had the impression of an old timer accustomed to an environment where norms of political compromise and governance were observed. The problem was that the new boy outsider didn't understand how the game was played. The trouble is that Woodward did not understand the partisan game is new: The GOP is forcing Dems to be the mom who's not willing to split the baby in half. It is a game of domination through radical will to deny any compromise. Woodward doesn't understand this new domination game, and if true, it would require him to go outside his comfort zone as being an arbiter between two competing political positions. If the truth is that one side really is the problem, the DC reporters do not know how to tell that story.
The real story is that the nation is held being prisoner by the South. Recall the scene from Cool Hand Luke where Paul Newman is being "educated" by the Florida Chain Gang warden:
Have we gotten the message from Florida yet? Was Travon Martin's problem a failure to communicate? JFK, and MLK also received their messages from the south.
I think we understand what the South is saying. The question is what we say in response.
Once again there's that "librul media bias" showing it's @ss cause it's head is in the sand. To pretend that "schmoozing" (or lack of it) by the President is the reason that politicians on the right aren't being cooperative is "irresponsible journalism" at best, at it's worst it is to pretend that the GOTP 1) hasn't whored themselves to the 2%, 2) don't want "THIS" President cause he is a black man, 3) to pretend as though the GOTP have just been snubbed and negate the last 4 years of GOTP obstruction and know-nothing-ness that they provide!
Ask anyone on Wall Street and they will tell you "There is no deal in the world that can't be sealed over a three martini lunch"...including crashing the economy, starting a war (or two) forming a strategy to bring complete and enduring dysfunction to our federal government...it's all possible with some cold gin and a twist
Schmoosing is still important, but I have to agree that schmoosing with some of these clowns is difficult and not necessarily as effective as it should be. No high administration official can hide out, but we can't expect as much as Reagan could in the days when he and Tipp O'Neill spent a lot of quality time together.
"...but it's worth reemphasizing that interpersonal outreach doesn't work because Republicans have reached an ideological extreme unseen in modern American history."
Yes, one would have to go all the way back to the mid-1800's to see this kind of ideological extremism.
And, as I recall, that didn't work out too well for a whole lot of people! Mainly in areas that are currently represented by ideological extremists.
Now, whodathunk that?
For the sake of argument, let's say that Republicans are rejecting Obama because he doesn't "schmooze" enough for their tastes. In this case, these media figures are promoting the bizarre notion that it is okay for elected officials to make policy decisions out of spite or because their feelings are hurt.
If any Republican complains that Obama doesn't socialize enough with them, then that person deserves the full brunt of public shame. Newt Gingrich didn't get away with that bull@!$%# when he complained about his seating on Air Force One.
Good God.
Yet more proof Obama is not a socialist :-D
nice,,
.
One of the few things baseball teaches us::: zingers (razzberries) are the fun of life..
Dana Milbank is simply confirming his status as a "villager". They are notable for believing that their culture is actually a representative American culture. If the entire country is in denial, then they are right.
Best comment of the day.
Milbank is not about confirming villager-think from American culture. He is about confirming slow motion DC groupthink.
Those "in the know" prefer Twitter groupthink.
I don't think it is much of a step up, but at least there is a stronger illusion of greater sampling coverage.
It isn't just the last four years, the attitude of the teapubs not associating with the other party started during the Clinton years. They would pull support for re-election if a teapub didn't support their own without question and have graduated to primary challenges if they don't line up their cracked little duckies with the extreme party line.
Both parties used to have drinks together, have dinner together and go to BBQs at each others homes, but the teapubs aren't allowed to do that anymore without repercussions from their own party. They can't even vote for their own bills if the dems or Obama like them.
What kind of government representation is that? The party is broken and they refuse to even see it, nevermind fix it. They have gotten rid of all the true republicans and we are left with teapub trash.
I thought this part of the press conference was interesting. President Obama did a little whining. It was if he was saying, "I tried to be nice but they kept calling me names." Here's the direct quote:
This was especially interesting given his very public statement in the biggest and one of the earliest attempt to "get along." He told Senator McCain, "the election is over," as if to say, "Look, loser, I'm the President and this is what we are going to do." This doesn't seem like a President who campaigned on bringing all sides together.
Lastly, it is NOT about "schmoozing," it is about the ability to work with people of different opinions and different backgrounds, etc. Few are turning away because the other "hurt their feelings," it is the civility that leads to compromise. This is lacking.
you could not be more incorrect in your interpretation of what Obama was saying. He was not saying, "I tried to be nice and they were mean." He was saying that the schmoozing he has done has not paved the way for policy to be done. His point was that even with Schmoozing the same thing happens when it comes to policy.
Robdon: The House Republicans had a contempt vote against Eric Holder for literally nothing, and it passed. How then can you expect Obama to pal around with people who would do such a thing? That was but one single example...
". . . it is the civility that leads to compromise. This is lacking."
It sure is. Mainly from the side that still questions whether the President was born here, whether he is lying about being a Christian, and who rudely yells "you lie!" during a State of the Unin speech and gets rewarded with a big fundraising payday for it. Of course, that side doesn't really want "compromise," which its own members have said is defined as Obama giving up and doing everything how Republicans want.
But lets put this in lagnauge even conservative Americans can understand. Lets say it is all about schmoozing. Why has Boehner rejected invitations to 6 state dinners Obama has invited him to? Boehner's lack of schmoozing is harming our country! (not to mention it is always sad when someone drinks that much by himself.)
RobDon:
There's not one comment that RobDon has made that does not contain a bit of disingenuousness. It seems he can not make a strong argument without being disingenuous.
Health Care Summit transcript: Part 3:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/health-care-summit-part-3_n_477322.html
Look, I've said both sides have a problem. There's no need for me to defend Boehner, he has plenty of blame. This article lets one know that the party not in the White House have refused invites before:
As to President Obama's ability to create productive relationships with his opponents, he has half the blame as well. This from one of his own staffers:
One side accuse the other, the other side accuses back, and each side makes excuses for their own. It's true on this blog and it is true in Washington. That's all I'm saying...
And, Rollo, thanks for the transcript. I have no problem with sources, context, facts, etc. The only thing the written word doesn't capture is the tone, and it was condescending, not something a leader should do in a public setting.
RobDon: are you suggesting John McCain deserves in any way to be spoken to without a "tone"? The man has flipped more than Mitt, and represents the very worst of the faction that sends our youth to die. McCain was once a principled man, kinda, but today is not worthy of serious consideration IMHO.
In that situation, that is exactly what I am suggesting. If you are the leader of trying to bring two different sides together, you do not farther isolate one side by your demeanor or tone. There are other ways of making a point. I challenge anyone to find a leadership resource that would say otherwise.
President Obama at the time was claiming he was trying to listen to all sides and work together. He was trying to fulfill a campaign promise of doing things differently. He did neither (for whatever reason you'd like to ascribe).
I am NOT saying he is all to blame or mostly to blame, I am saying he, like all the others, bear the blame. And I too say, imho.
The notion that the House Tea Party Republicans would be more receptive to the President and suddenly decide that the federal government is capable of positive change and a force for good if President Obama invited them over for a beer and a game of cards is ridiculous.
The GOP has no wish to govern. They'd just as soon have the electorate hate the government as much as they do. The House GOP entered public service (for lack of a better description) with an unshakeable conviction (and a desire to prove this conviction) that government can never be a force for good or positive change.
So it is against their raison d'être to achieve anything positive under the Obama administration. Their sole aim is to shut down all programs, shut down the government, starve it so it cannot do anything, including regulate the banks, the oil companies, etc. If they could they'd burn it down. Or in Norquist's classy, disturbing imagery, "drown it in the bathtub."
One cannot be trusted to govern whose sole reason for public service is to trash governance itself and prove the utter failure of the federal government to serve the nation. The GOP's actions are the result of a unique, destructive conflict of interest. They have literally come to DC to do as little as possible and make certain no one else can accomplish anthing productive as well. All the while collecting their government run healtcare, filibustering themselves, blocking as many bills as possible, and raising cash.
AHH, once again we circle the issue, reaching for our thesaurus to gild the lilly.
If the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes were to be given an op-ed spot in the WaPo, he would point out that White People don't like to hang out with Black People.
Boy, dance around the question much?! How about: "Republicans are A$$holes" Mr. President?! I think he'd be pleasantly surprised how many folks might agree..
For the life of me I just can't understand why these journos like Milbank and Chuck Todd are unable to get beyond the whole "Obama needs to schmooze" meme. Are they completely blind? Republicans will NEVER be seen shaking hands with, sharing a beer with, grabbing a burger with this president. Many are afraid they will be primaried, many do not feel that he is legitimately President. My senile old man could see that, why don't Todd and Milbank and all the others saying this see it?
Personally I would like to see the President stop offering his hand in bi-partisanship and instead offer a proud middle finger instead. I wouldn't blame him.
Chuck Todd & Co. need controversy to attract viewers to sell them to advertisers. That explains cable TV.
Chuck the toad Todd is always saying "both sides do it". I'm so sick of hearing that crap from him that I tune him out or change the channel when he has more than a few seconds air time. He's a broken record for teapubs and belongs on Faux Fake and BS Gnewz or Faux II CNN.
Agree with all of the above. Can't figure out why Chuck Todd is not over at Fux News by now.
Maybe the GOP has swallowed its own pile of steaming propaganda about how "patriotic" they are? Nah, they can't be that stupid. Oh yes they can. I'm so confused.
Final thought: They run the country like it's a homeowners association.
..at a trailer park.
Good one!
I believe the term for this rationale is "clutching at straws."
For some people there has to be a reason for nothing getting done in Congress beyond "one side is refusing to let anything get done in Congress." I mean, the Villagers have seen Mann & Ornstein get banished to whatever passes in Siberia in their parts for saying essentially "let's admit what we all know, the Republicans are the problem." Do YOU want to be frozen out from all the tasty access, too? Obama barely punishes Fox News for attacking him on a personal level and they are the media wing of the GOP, so clearly he won't get his feathers ruffled too much if the other pundits keep insisting that the problem must lie somewhere twixt both parties.
As the President said, it is "bad optics",,, for the T-bagsofsht to be seen with him.
This complaint about interpersonal ease is one that often is said about women in corporate situations. I wonder how much of this has to do with a different "style" that that which Washington (mostly a bastion of white males) is used to. I don't think it is all just a conspiracy (which is not to say I agree that all are 'schmoozing' in good faith).
I've said it before. The MEDIA is as much to blame as the obstructionist Congress. DO YOUR FLIPPIN' JOBS and stop the crap. Thank you Kevin Drum!
Seriously, I was watching Todd this morning and he had on 2 guests, neither of which answered one single question he was asked. Every time they were asked something they changed the subject to some obscure talking point that had nothing to do with the question. If they won't answer any questions, why have them on? What a waste of air time. Yes or no questions require yes or no answers.
Milbank had to churn out another column but couldn't come up with an original subject to write about so he resorted to this (I'm guessing). I read that column this morning and it was such weak tea he had to have been desperate. Or not.
I suspect the real problem is the president insists on schmoozing while black.
Why anyone pays attention to Dana Millbank I just don't know. Remember his piggish chortling about Hilary Clinton during the Democratic primary? He's derivative, but maybe his small mind is incapable of deeper thought or (heaven forbid) data analysis, so he's forced to go with Hillary as shrewish schemer and Barack as cool (bl**k) dude who doesn't form "personal ties." Yet another sign of the WaPo's stagnation and decline.
Jackie Calmes, the reporter who asked the question, works for the NY Times and previously worked for 14 years for the Wall Street Journal. 'Nuff said.
As for more shmoozing -- President Obama, because the Teathuglicants are such intransigent obstructionists, will be criticized for being distant if he doesn't shmooze more and criticized for being manipulative if he does try to shmooze more. The Teathugs are bullies and mean girls -- "if you go to the President's party, we won't be friends any more with you."
That being said, their snobby, racist and entitled attitudes, plus their mindless ideologies and sychophantic sucking up to corrupt billiionaires will lead to their downfall.
I don't remember hearing about Democrats being invited to the Bush White House, Camp David, golfing matches, or the Ranch for social gatherings, formal or informal, but then, I've forgotten a lot purposely about that time. However, could someone research who, when, where, what, and why if those occasions occurred during President Bush's first term, just so we are reminded of the facts?