The state of our political union

Tuesday, President Obama gave his annual State of the Union address. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., gave the official Republican rebuttal, and going rogue, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., live-streamed her own rebuttal to the president on the Tea Party Express website.

Strap yourselves in because this is the beginning of campaign mode.

Each used the speech to set priorities, craft their own narrative and energize their base for the year ahead.

Their victories and losses in 2011 will cement the narrative for 2012, the significance being the huge potential loss or retention of the presidency.

The question then is: Upon whom will the pundits and beltway insiders bestow the title of “this year’s victor” when New Year’s coverage begins in December?

Having won the midterm elections and overtaken the House, the ball is on the Republicans’ turf. This is the Republicans’ year to lose.

It is unlikely any of the three will have a flawless year. It would be nearly impossible for President Obama to accomplish all of his major priorities, and for Republicans, a true repeal of health care would be similarly difficult.

But if we’ve learned anything during the last two years, a pretty good bet can be made that the president will be victorious. If so, his successes will be for the economy and the middle class, and his second term will be secure.

Republicans are at a perilous point. Just as Obama’s poll numbers sunk soon after the realities of governing set in, they are rising in resistance to Tea Partiers who are growing wary that Congress will not have the guts to gut government.

The Republicans in Congress are usually very adept at keeping their members in lockstep on issues, yet the ingrained anti-establishment attitude of the Tea Party could easily unfurl their efforts to work as a cohesive unit.

If they are unable to compromise with the Tea Party and impart upon them the realities of governing, they will be unable to counter Obama’s attacks and will allow him to control the narrative.

The Tea Party looks unlikely to succeed as well. The all-or-nothing attitude may make for nice talking points or rhetorical flourishes, but it is not a functional plan to govern. House Republicans will be forced to compromise with the president and ignore the Tea Party.

GOP leadership knows that refusing to raise the debt ceiling and shutting down government are unacceptable options.

If they were chosen, Republicans would get decimated in the next election, just as they did in 1995, and the Tea Party would see its already flimsy influence wane further.

As much as Democrats would not like to see the government shut down, they would clearly accept the political benefits associated with it.

The Tea Party will not give up without a fight, however, and the resulting inner-party battle among Republicans will distract the party from the one who will damage it most, President Obama.

Love him or hate him, you cannot deny Obama has had very few political and legislative losses in comparison to his already extensive list of accomplishments.
Obama has been so successful because he has deftly chosen his battles and wisely compromised with Republicans where he could.

His pragmatism, which at first won him no points from either the far left or the far right, has been his greatest asset as he looks to secure victories for the American public.
It is this pragmatism and deft navigation of policy battles that will bring more legislative victories for the center left, more heartache and headache for Republicans and more outrage among Tea Party members in 2011.

If Republicans would learn to accept moderation and encourage it, rather than accepting moderation only when it is the least damaging choice, they would not find themselves wedged between a powerful president and an angry Tea Party.

Until Republicans learn to compromise, they’ll cede more of their power away through inner-party squabbles.


E-mail: cdbabcoc@indiana.edu