Why we need a ‘Grand Bargain’ and why it's also possible

‘’John Boehner is like a Republican state senator. He’s a golf-playing, cigarette-smoking, country club Republican, who’s there to make deal. He’s very familiar to me.’’

President Obama

‘’The President and I, as I’ve made clear, have a very good relationship.’’

John Boehner

Paul Ryan is right - debt negotiations are long overdue. In his op-ed, the Wisconsin Congressman focuses on serious reforms. For a start, he suggests a GOP openness to raising medicare premiums for the wealthy. Raising taxes on the wealthy? Hardly the ramblings of an ideological warmonger.

But Ryan's seriousness only speaks to a broader, growing movement in the GOP.

Recognizing that Obama cannot and will not yield on ObamaCare, a number of Congressional Republicans are hinting at an alternate path towards ending the shutdown. Instead of focusing on health care, they want to pursue a ‘grand bargain’ with Democrats- addressing spending, revenue and entitlement reforms all at once. However, as Robert Costa has noted, other House Republicans are focused on a smaller deal - one that ends the shutdown but kicks big reforms down the road.

I understand the skepticism, but America needs a ‘grand bargain’. In the end, it’s the only way that we’ll cut to the heart of the shutdown.

Let’s be clear. Ultimately, this standoff wasn’t caused by ObamaCare. It’s always been about a bigger issue; the most abiding of political issues – the question of America’s state-society relationship. We’re witnessing a broader struggle for America’s future.

On one side, Democrats believe that the Federal government should constitute the central, redistributive support structure for those in economic difficulty.

In the GOP, the power of social conservatism is being displaced by an energetic fusion of fiscal conservatism and libertarianism. Still, the central Republican belief remains the same - that the common good is best served by facilitating individual aspiration.

In governing practice, where liberals see virtue in an American version of the European style ‘safety net’ social contract, conservatives (like myself) see disaster.

But though they're passionately held, these ideological divisions hide a simple truth.

We’ve seen the dividend of years of dysfunctional government. It hasn’t worked. Instead, Americans need a grand solution that rebuilds our political discourse. We need a solution in which both sides give and get. In short, we need Republicans to yield on sensible revenue generation and Democrats yield on entitlement reform.

For sure, the hacks will scream. Nevertheless, a ‘grand bargain’ compromise needn’t be toxic (my proposal!). Just as revenue generation can be centered in tax code reforms, entitlement reform can be rooted in protecting America’s most vulnerable. When the governing pillars of prosperity, responsibility and social justice are mutually reliant, all sides win.

And don’t believe the doubters, a ‘grand bargain’ is politically possible.

Consider Boehner’s warning that he won’t allow a debt default to occur. This message carries an implicit understanding – if necessary, Boehner will rely upon Democratic votes. Yet the Speaker knows that if breaks the ‘Hastert rule’, his Speakership may break along with it. Correspondingly, his statement illustrates something important – Boehner is willing to embrace major political risks for causes he believes in.

Recent evidence suggests that Obama may feel similarly.

In the cancellation of his long planned Asia trip (‘the pivot’ agenda being a key priority of his Administration), Obama has signaled that ending the shutdown is, at least in part, a Presidential responsibility. Though he's aware that his base is against a deal, the President also realizes that his shutdown legacy won’t be defined by the shutdown itself, but instead by what follows. More compelling - the President has regularly made clear that he wants a bargain. At this juncture, it would offer a positive conclusion to the shutdown.

In his book, ‘The Price of Politics’, Bob Woodward notes the respectful, friendly rapport that characterized the Obama-Boehner (and Biden-Cantor) interactions during the ‘grand bargain’ effort of 2011. Even though they didn’t reach a deal, the leaders ultimately respected each other.

Today, as in 2011, the President and the Speaker have two choices.

They can continue to clog Pennsylvania Avenue with partisan vitriol. Or they can take shared risks in the nation’s best interest.

5 latest thoughts - US debate over Syria

1) White House Waltz

On Monday, Senators Graham and McCain visited with President Obama at the White House. The reason for the meeting was pretty simple. The President knows that he needs Republican support to push his authorization of force 'strategy' through Congress. Yet, McCain's presence indicates something else - the President's desperation. President Obama knows that in making pledges (or even being perceived to make pledges) to McCain/Graham over a willingness to use major military force against Assad, he risks alienating other members of Congress (on both sides) who are deeply skeptical about a major strike. By inviting McCain/Graham, it's only possible to draw one conclusion - that the President has judged that he will not win authorization without the influence of more interventionist minded conservatives. 

I'm cognizant that this strategy might be a political necessity (McCain's influence is substantial). Nevertheless, it provides a profound example of the contradiction that infects this Administration's political management of the present crisis. They establish a 'red line' and then pretend it's pink. They claim that the President has authority to use force without Congress, but simultaneously, they insinuate that he doesn't. They suggest that the strikes will be ''limited and narrow'', but simultaneously, they tell others that the military action will be serious and comprehensive. 

           Whether you believe that America needs to make a more substantial intervention in Syria, or whether you believe that such a course would constitute a grievous mistake, it's evident to all that the Administration's position is devoid of clarity.

2) Obama Administration's Politicization of Leaks

The front page of the New York Times (at least online!) leads with an article on Syria. More specifically, it also offers this inadvertent gem of a quote - 

''Officials said that... Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.'' 

I'm sorry, but if the second paragraph of the lead story of the world's most prestigious newspaper prints something... it ain't covert. To me, this latest leak represents a broader failing on the part of the Administration - when it comes to leaks, they apply two sets of rules - one for military/civil servant leakers, another for themselves. In light of the President's recent rhetoric on the need for a legislative balance to the Executive, this leaking also represents an act of exceptional hypocrisy. The Administration is treating solemn state secrets as political footballs. Except... they're playing the role of both player and referee.

3) Putin's intransigence

The Russian Government is continuing to spout their spiel about how the US is lying etc. etc. To be honest, I don't really listen to the Putin-posse anymore. President Putin seems to have taken the worst elements of Russian history - the arrogance of the Romanovs, the paranoid authoritarianism of Stalin and the cartoonish corruption of Yeltsin... mixed them together and incorporated himself in their essence. He clearly has zero interest in serious dialogue with the United States. Until he does, President Obama should just ignore him. I mean that. The 'reset' has been a complete and unmitigated disaster.

4) Hagel, Kerry and Dempsey - Hill Testimony

The President's greatest assets are off to the Hill. Their job? To persuade a highly hesitant Congress to support military action against Assad. At least on Syria, this is the Obama A-team. Kerry has been the face of American resolve since Assad's massacre and Hagel has lead the US capability-orientation for a possible strike. But most important, when it comes to Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), as I've argued before, the President has a military leader of the highest order. Incidentally, Dempsey also has another talent...

5) Foreign Reactions

As I argued in my Week column on Sunday, when it comes to America's evolving policy towards Assad, international actors are paying very close attention to DC politics. In this vein, it's unsurprising that we're seeing the following two noticeable developments:

• Growing concern and doubt on the part of US allies in the region.
• The Lebanese Hizballah mobilizing their defensive/offensive capabilities.

Finally, if this report (that the Administration is planning to reach out to Iran) is true, it would speak to a seriously delusional endeavor. Since 2003, the Iranian negotiating strategy has proved one thing above all else - whether Ahmadinejad or Rouhani, America cannot negotiate with Iran from a position of weakness.

Of Drones and Men - Rand Paul Filibuster

Senator Rand Paul has strong legs. 12 hours of Filibuster and counting. Senator Paul's concern? The Obama Administration's unwillingness to provide him with clarification over the use of UCAVs (Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles) on American soil. I respect Rand Paul's passion. He's taking a stand (quite literally) for a cause that is obviously crucial - there are very few issues as important as the civil liberty of the American people. He's also helping the GOP move to a more intellectual position on national security- a realm of complexity demanding of independent thought. And while I'm personally not terribly concerned that the US Government will be unleashing Hellfires on American civilians any time soon, I'm also cognizant of the need to draw scrutiny to the President's aggressive Executive. The President must understand that democracy does not equal blind acquiescence to his will.

On the flip side, I also have a few concerns here.

First, the FOREIGN deployment of UCAVs provides a critical tool for US counter-terrorism efforts. In the absence of boots on the ground (which nowadays has a distinctly weak political constituency) and in the context of a strategic environment in which our foreign partners do not want an overt US footprint in their territory, UCAVs are a major asset. They enable the United States to identify, monitor and defeat our foreign adversaries. They have allowed us to impose devastating physical and psychological losses on Al Qa'ida and its affiliates. In this regard, we should make distinction between using drones abroad and using them at home.

Second, I genuinely believe that John Brennan would make a strong DCI. He's intelligent, well respected by international intelligence agencies and has an extremely strong resume. For a start, Brennan is fluent in Arabic, an expert on the Middle East and is a former Riyadh station chief. He knows how to fight Al Qa'ida. Yes, he's not perfect. His backtracking on the CIA's interrogation program reeks of supplication to Congressional Democrats- who are desperate to ignore history. But the truth is that the CIA has much important work to do. Whether in facing down AQAP, or restraining AQIM, or continuing to exert pressure on terrorists in Pakistan, or providing accurate assessments on China and Russia, or in addressing the multitude of other concerns that we face, the CIA desperately needs strong leadership and a respected voice in the White House. Compared to Hagel at DoD, Brennan is a good choice.

Finally, I worry about how the White House will try to slander Paul and by association the GOP. If they're able to paint Paul's filibuster as an example of unrepentant GOP intransigence, then the Republican position re-the 2014 midterms will be weakened. Such a portrayal would be unfair - thus far, Obama has lacked a serious willingness to compromise. Sadly however, politics is just as much about perception as it is about reality. To avoid this spin from the White House, GOP Senators must engage Democrats to get behind Paul.
 

In the end, my position is pretty basic. I hope the President will answer Senator Paul's concerns. But I also hope that Paul recognizes the need for a functioning, well lead Central Intelligence Agency. If the President is willing to get his act together, then over the next four years, America can achieve much around the world. That opportunity is positive. But we also need to recognize the negative - America faces serious threats. Those dangers must be confronted and each day we're absent a CIA Director, our task is made more difficult. President Obama has the ball, he should meet Senator Paul's reasonable requests and then Paul should end his filibuster.