Obama and Bipartisanship: Is Obama Hopelessly Naive?

As President Barack Obama’s administration recovers from its latest rebuff in its efforts to foster bipartisanship, one underlying theme in emerging commentary is: Is Obama naive in trying to foster bipartisanship in a country with a political culture and media that seem to emotionally and financially thrive on demonization, controversy and polarization?

It gets back to a key question that emerged in Obama’s battle with now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the primaries: does being “realistic” mean accepting things as they are or working to bring about change which may be incremental in coming so there is a new realism? U.S. politics has not always been marked by such a toxic political tone: it evolved.

And if change is incremental in coming, won’t that cost a lot of political capital that Obama will need to achieve the most realistic goals — such as fundamental change and proof that a majority party can deliver the goods promised beset voters? Can a mega-partisan cycle be broken when its key actors (the political elites, and new and old media types) seem to like it the way it is — where politics as it’s played today is almost a fun game.

The questions linger. Time’s Joe Klein points to GOPer Judd Gregg’s decision to pull out of consideration for the Obama cabinet and says Obama shouldn’t trust but should try to reconcile. First, he says Obama needs to do better vetting (to which both Democrats and Republicans today will say “NO DUH…”) and then he writes:

The second, and more important, lesson has to do with bipartisanship. Obama should now understand that the Republicans are not reliable partners–at least, not for the moment. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Reaganism, intent on taking a Hooverist course on the economy (although there remains cause for optimism on foreign policy). The President’s default position, after the stimulus fight and the Gregg fiasco, should be to appoint Democrats to significant domestic policy positions–the notion of making a public show of bipartisanship, by reaching across the aisle to someone like Senator Gregg, gives the opposition too much credibility and leverage. Which doesn’t mean that Obama shouldn’t remain as conciliatory, and open to constructive Republican ideas, as he has been. There are potential long-term benefits from such openness (and short-term benefit as well, since the public clearly believes that Obama has been more reasonable than the Republicans).

At MSNBC’s always reliable and intriguing First Read, Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro provide further fuel for the idea that Obama is still a work in progress. And the question and is whether his progress on his agenda — and his supply of clout — will be impeded as he progresses on his lessons on the Washington realities within which he must operate:

Just when you thought the news was getting a bit stale — after the deal on the stimulus — came the latest twist and turn on the Obama White House’s four-week-old rollercoaster ride. Despite his gracious words at his press conference yesterday, Republican Judd Gregg’s decision to withdraw his nomination to be Commerce secretary was a blow to the administration. One, it became the latest nomination problem for Obama (Daschle, Killefer, and Richardson), and the second one at Commerce. Two, it undermined the president’s bipartisan outreach (Gregg would have been the third Republican to serve in the cabinet, and the one with the most conservative credentials). And three, it enabled Republicans to immediately politicize the withdrawal. House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a statement pointing to Gregg’s concerns “about the congressional Democrats’ trillion-dollar spending bill,” even though Gregg had praised the stimulus after being tapped for the job. And RNC chair Michael Steele explained Gregg’s withdrawal to FOX, saying that the White House was “basically high-jacking the Census process.”

The bottom line is that this toe-stubbing seem to be starting to create an image of Obama as a well-meaning, smart, gracious political babe in the woods. First Read also offers this other related item:

Perhaps the biggest fallout from yesterday’s Gregg news is the realization that outside Collins, Snowe, and Specter, Obama isn’t going to receive much support from Republicans, no matter how many of them he tries to appoint to his cabinet, how many times he has them over for drinks at the White House, and how many times he meets with their conference. Of course, Gregg is an ideological conservative and was always an odd fit in the president’s cabinet. And he said in his statement yesterday that he was uncomfortable with the size and shape of the stimulus package, as well as the fact the White House had taken responsibility for managing the Census from the Commerce Department. We also know this: Gregg blindsided Team Obama with his final decision. The White House knew Gregg was getting cold feet, but figured they’d know before he issued his press release, which came out just as Obama was campaigning in Peoria, IL for his stimulus. That’s what clearly annoyed them, and why White House press secretary Robert Gibbs fired off a pretty hot statement reacting to Gregg’s decision. A lot of the inside-the-Beltway finger-pointing is being aimed at Gregg (after all, he’s the one who withdrew, right?). But, given the other cabinet snafus, just how is this going to be perceived outside of Washington?

First Read also notes that Gregg’s withdrawal has sparked proclamations of delight on the left and on the right, which isn’t surprising. He who tries to chart a centrist course gets those on both ends of the political spectrum upset, particularly if one on their side is participating in it — or enabling it:
The irony of Gregg’s departure is that it has pleased virtually everyone on the right and left. (How many times does that happen?) …Gregg was no moderate, and Obama getting him to serve in the cabinet would have been a huge bipartisan coup — which is why GOPers were so crabby about census and so relieved after he pulled out.

The big question remains Obama’s future course. He never promised (as he has reminded the media) that he could change the way Washington operates in less than a month.

Is he expending too much political capital this point in his young Presidency or will this eventually prove to be worth it? Or is the talk about bipartisanship hopelessly Polyanna-ish because that’s the way it is in 21st century America where people have too much of an emotional and financial stake in doing things exactly the way they’ve been done for the past two decades and past 8 years?