Could a GOP Majority be Obama’s New BFF?

Josh Greenman of the New York Daily News takes a look at the partisan divide in Washington, which recent polls indicate has gotten wider, not narrower, in the Age of Obama, and concludes that it’s not the fault of the president. In his view, it’s people… not presidents… who are tearing the country asunder. It’s an interesting view, and I have to admit that the red blue chasm in this nation is pretty big to pin on one individual, no matter how influential they may be.

As a candidate, Obama did much to portray himself as uniquely able to fill this role. His demeanor, his advertised pragmatic approach, even his mixed-race heritage – all of it held the promise of bringing America together, in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton, who, we were told, would keep the cycle of endless partisanship alive. And this, supporters believed, would enable a break from Bush, the man who said he was a uniter, then systematically wound up dividing the country with a ruthless, Rovian, partisan strategy.

Let 2008 be the last time this illusion of national unification is used to win elections, followed by months of hand-wringing about emerging divisiveness.

Going right back to Obama’s honeymoon days, I’ve been of the opinion that the new President really was interested in bipartisan cooperation, and may have actually come to believe his own press. He invited the Republican leadership over for cocktails, started a dialog and really seemed to think that his arrival would have the D’s and the R’s showing up with doves and olive branches for each other.

Unfortunately, what he didn’t count on was the Nancy and Harry show. They showed up and seemed to thank him for the electoral coat tails and then sent him off to go take the girls out for ice cream and work in Michelle’s garden until they had something for him to sign. The results, after two hundred days in office today, (did you send him a card?) have been a steady decline in Obama’s popularity and the absolute cratering of the Congressional majority’s already dismal approval ratings.

But what would happen if the GOP seized control of the House next year? (I simply don’t see ten seats for them in the Senate, given the class next up for reelection.) Would that spell the beginning of the end for Obama? Maybe… but then again, maybe not. In the early 90’s, the Democrats made a similar, fatal mistake of overreach when they controlled both branches and were promptly evicted from the majority offices in the next cycle. But, if anything, Bill Clinton’s popularity only seemed to increase over time.

True, Clinton’s election runs got a huge boost from the fact that Ross Perot was tossed into the mix, but Clinton was left with no choice but to “sleep with the enemy” if he wanted to accomplish anything. The country was actually in pretty good shape after that and Americans didn’t seem to be very bothered at all by the two parties sharing power. In fact, there was an impression that things were getting done and the country was in fairly capable hands.

Obama is unlikely to get any sort of third party assist unless Sarah Palin turns out to be truly suicidal and makes an independent run. (In which case, Obama will win a second term even if he changes his campaign slogan from “Yes we can” to “You people are all idiots.”) But if a new GOP House majority finds a way to reign in spending and get the growing, terrifying national debt under control, one unintended result could be that America’s fears on the domestic front would be eased and that improved attitude could carry over to Obama as well.

If the President has to deal with John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi and they manage to find some way to get legislation passed in a way that satisfies the voters, that new rising tide might lift both boats. At the moment, it’s beginning to look like the Democrats are in for a trip to the woodshed. Wouldn’t it be ironic if 2010 electoral success for the GOP turned out to be the winning formula for a second Obama term?