Can McChrystal Help Obama's Bipartisan Restart?

Last week's dramatic exchange of one general for another was more than a potentially historic turn in Barack Obama's term, a recommitment to the current Afghanistan policy and a moment for presidential high theater. Following the dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal and the instatement of General David Petraeus, Republicans openly praised not just the President's decision but also his judgment. Democrats admired Obama's deft extrication from the crater caused by McChrystal's intemperate Rolling Stone bomb. Left-center and right-center members of Congress took to the mikes to declare their approval and relief. It was a major break from the relentless partisanship that has marked the Administration so far. When the conservative commentariat, including hawkish Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney, loudly applauds Obama's leadership, you know something different is happening.

Such a mature and sensible reaction to the swift and savvy resolution of a potential national quandary is far more in line with the kind of bipartisan coalitions Obama once promised to build — and still aspires to create. In some parallel universe, this interlude of apparent good feeling could be leveraged by Obama on other issues. But despite the bipartisan support on Afghanistan, there is a pronounced continued lack of comity on every other major issue in play — the BP disaster, efforts to combat unemployment, the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan and Wall Street regulation. There is zero prospect in the short run that Republicans will change course on any of these issues in meaningful numbers. Between now and the midterms, the opposition party is determined to maintain its chosen posture: paint Obama as a failed liberal President.

Although the President's greatest legislative achievements to date (the stimulus, the auto bailout, health care, financial regulation) have been earned with only, or almost only, Democratic votes in Congress, his remaining goals require building the kind of bipartisan coalitions he promised to forge as a presidential candidate. The list is pretty obvious: energy, immigration, deficit reduction. And if, as expected, Republicans make major gains in the midterm elections, further efforts on jobs and education also will require support from both sides of the aisle. Mathematically and politically, winning GOP votes is essential if the Administration wants to get anything meaningful done before 2012.

If politics were magically drained from the equation, Obama would have long ago reached compromise deals on all of these issues with significant numbers of Republicans in the Senate and, in some cases, the House. But mistakes by both sides since 2008 and a lack of personal trust between the President and Republican congressional leaders have made such grand pacts impossible. The Republican Party remains exceedingly weak by many measures, beholden to its most extreme ideological elements and loath to give Obama any political victories. The President is still largely captive on domestic issues to the liberals in his party's congressional leadership and unable to work his fabled charm on even the relatively temperate members of the other party. There haven't been any serious attempts at a substantive breakthrough or interpersonal thaw of the chilly relations on either side since early in the Administration.

But giving up is not an option for the President. There are many ways to project the future course of his Administration, but none as consequential as his success in winning Republican support and on occasion, as he's done on Afghanistan, standing up to his own party's liberals. In the short term, the one issue the White House believes could provide a meaningful bipartisan breakthrough is energy. Obama was set to meet with key Senators from both parties last Wednesday to search for outlines of a compromise leading to the necessary 60 votes. The President's strategists wisely invited several Republican Senators, such as Indiana's Richard Lugar and New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, who have strong ideas about energy policy and are temperamentally suited to cooperate in the national interest, especially in the wake of BP's screwup. The Administration has all but publicly said it is willing to forge ahead without including the liberal demand for a comprehensive cap-and-trade provision in the Senate bill — even though (or, maybe, because) such a measure is part of the House bill passed almost a year ago with Democrat-only support. The McChrystal emergency necessitated the postponement of the meeting, and the group is now scheduled to meet on Tuesday. Who knows? A bipartisan success here could allow the President to break down some of the personal barriers that have been erected and allow for future deals on other thorny problems.

The President has millions of liberal supporters who would be happy if he never compromised with Republicans to pass a bill on anything. That group includes prominent Democratic members of Congress and legions of bloggers. There are millions of conservatives who believe striking deals with Obama before the midterms would be both immoral and unwise. That group includes the main campaign strategists for the Republican Party and Tea Party activists galore. Obama, however, knows he has no choice but to change the way he governs. He can count votes. His Afghanistan policy is sustaining because it has earned Republican and Democratic support in the ideological middle. Almost nothing else of significance can be done on other big issues without securing 60 votes in the Senate. After the midterms, getting to that magic number in the upper chamber will be even harder, and in the House he might be dealing with a GOP majority.

After a bad couple of months, largely due to the Gulf oil spill, Obama has had a very good seven days. Last Wednesday's Rose Garden event may have been memorable, but this Tuesday's energy meeting could end up having longer-term implications for a President who pledged to govern in the center.