Much of this might sound familiar, but consider the source.
James Baker was Ronald Reagan’s first chief of staff. Later he served as
Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury.
He counts as one of the more respected of the Washington “wise
men.”
For you edification, I offer Tony Blair’s impression of a
negotiation he, a leader of a British parliamentary delegation, undertook with
Baker in 1985. Baker was then Secretary of the Treasury. The subject was double
taxation, which occurs, Blair explained: “when two nations both claim to be
able to tax the same economic activity.”
Blair’s expectations:
I knew
nothing about Jim, but it was decided that I would be the one to make our case
to him and give the Treasury Secretary a good tough talking-to. Like the
diligent lawyer I then was, I mugged up on the facts, became an overnight
expert on double taxation and was duly thrown into the fray, the flight over on
the Concorde having boosted my sense of my own importance.
Then Blair reported on the negotiations:
I came
out of the meeting feeling a little like a boxer who had been told that the
fight was fixed and the other guy would go down in the second round, only to
find he was in the ring with Rocky Marciano and no one had told him about the
deal. Jim was focused, on top of the detail, erudite, answered my points one by
one, threw in a few of his own, took my warnings of tough action and exposed
them as a series of paper tigers and sent me out of there reeling and seeing
stars. Above all, he was smart. What I learned that day is that Americans can
be really, really clever.
This is to say that when it comes to high-level negotiations,
Baker is a master. Since the current occupant of the White House and the
current majority leader of the Senate have refused to negotiate—neither of them
seem to know how to do it, at all-- it is worth listening to what Baker has to
say.
Peggy Noonan called him and reports his thoughts in her Wall Street Journal column today.
Noonan quotes Baker:
The
political problem: The president is failing to lead. His refusal to negotiate
with Republicans over spending and the debt limit is "an obstinate
position, it's not a leadership position." The Republicans made a mistake
early on with a "maximalist" position on ObamaCare—they could not
realistically achieve their aim of defunding when the Democrats hold the White
House and Senate. But the president's position is a "pretty damn
maximalist position itself, and people will say that."
Presidents,
he notes, always negotiate
in order to get an increase in the debt limit—it’s their job. "It's a
failure of leadership to say, 'I'm just gonna sit here while the government
remains closed,' or, with respect to the debt limit, 'I'll sit here and not
negotiate and the catastrophic consequences I warned you of will just have to
happen.' . . . He has the burden of moving forward. He's the leader
of the country. He has to get the debt limit raised to avoid default."
Of course, Republicans bear some responsibility too. Noonan
reports:
"I
don't think it was a very wise strategy for we Republicans to say we would not
fund the government unless we defunded ObamaCare. I don't think that's a smart
political strategy, and I think we'll pay a price for it. . . . If
you're gonna make your stand, make your stand on something you can accomplish."
When he worked for Reagan, he'd come back from a negotiation saying, "I
think we can get this," and it was never all the president wanted.
"Reagan would say, 'I'd rather get 80% of what I want than go over the
cliff with my flag flying.'"
As nearly everyone knows, to lead is to negotiate:
He [Baker]
returns to the leadership problem: "When a president doesn't control both
sides of Congress he has to deal with the other party. Ronald Reagan did it
almost every day with Tip O'Neill." Nonnegotiation is bad politics.
"Suppose we get past this budget debate and Oct. 17 get into a fight
on the debt limit. I'm not certain the American people would not penalize the
administration."
What
should President Obama do? Own it. Lead. "Leading would be call [Speaker
John] Boehner in: 'All right, this is a sorry situation for our country. Come
on here and let's talk about resolving it.'" In this negotiation they
should first explore an agreement on getting rid of the special provisions for
Congress. Second, they could move to come to agreement on eliminating the
medical device tax.
"Resolve
this thing by getting into a room and making the government work. The leader of
our government should be willing to get into a room and sit down with the
opposition."
Democratic leaders are unwilling to negotiate because they
believe that the politics plays in their favor:
Why
doesn't Mr. Obama do this? Baker spoke of "obstinacy" and political
calculation. "This White House thinks it's got a bird's nest on the ground
because we Republicans overreached when we said defund ObamaCare." The
president thinks this works for him. "He could turn out to be right, and
he could turn out to be wrong." Democrats "think this is a great
political strategy. I'm not sure it is if it continues too long, particularly
if it segues into the debt limit and he doesn't negotiate." The White
House meeting of the president and Congressional leaders Wednesday night does
not qualify as a negotiation. "They didn't do anything but parrot their
respective positions."
As of now, the Democrats are winning and the Republicans are
losing. Baker still holds out hope for the Republicans:
A sound
strategy for the Republicans going forward would involve a shift in public
perception. People will see the issue one way when they believe House
Republicans are unwilling to pass a budget because of ObamaCare. When people
see the issue as the president refusing to negotiate with House Republicans on
the issue of the debt limit, things will change. The president's refusal to
negotiate "could change the political calculus, the more so the longer it
goes. . . . My political antennae tell me when the debate becomes the
failure of our leader to negotiate . . . the mood of the country
could flip." That would look like a true "abdication of leadership."
As I said, this might sound repetitious, but I am astonished
that some people do not understand that leadership is negotiation. In fact,
most social life involves some level of negotiation. Those who prefer
confrontation to compromise often end up in conflict only with themselves.
2 comments:
It's is hubris to think that the democrat would vote to defund obmamcare, when that is there only real accomplishment for this president.
" Democratic leaders are unwilling to negotiate because they believe that the politics plays in their favor: "
And maybe they are trusting the Media to carry their water and lie for them.
We are seeing the administration shoot themselves in the feet at the WWII memorial (and there was that woman yesterday actually shot).
Post a Comment