Obama's Playbook for Governing

He'll blaze a centrist path to forge consensus, frustrating the far left and right wings.

By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

November 10, 2008
Text Size T T

Advertisement

President-elect Barack Obama will govern from the center. He not only wants to, he has no other option. His historic win was built on a broad coalition, one that went beyond young and minority voters. He won about 55% of moderates and independents, as well as almost half of college-educated whites. That wave put him in office and one he'll reflect in much policy- and decision-making, including in the people he appoints. Governing from the middle is also what he feels most comfortable doing.

Obama's mandate isn't ideological. It's a mandate for a new style of politics. He didn't win because of any specific policy plan he promoted or because he fanned the most partisan fires. He won because voters were fed up with what they felt was a president and Congress who didn't listen to the public and constantly locked horns, seemingly unable to work together.

Obama persuaded voters that he could change the way Washington works, but delivering on this promise won't be easy. Politics is a rough and tumble world for a reason: People disagree, often passionately, on complicated and controversial issues. And jockeying for political power is always part of the equation. Still, members of Congress heard the voters, too, and they are serious about wanting to find bipartisan solutions. On some issues, that just won't be possible, but on others, if there's enough political will to compromise, significant legislation will be in reach.

Obama is already signaling moderation, telling business and labor leaders, for example, that he won't rush on key issues that divide them. And he's trying to tamp down expectations from groups that helped him get elected, warning them not to expect sweeping change overnight.

There's little room for error and no time to waste. Obama will move quickly on his transition, putting his campaign's vast organizational might to the task. Look for him to name his White House staff and Cabinet by Thanksgiving, It will include political stars, experienced Washington hands and several Republicans. Chief of staff-in-waiting, Rahm Emanuel, plays hardball, but he knows how to work with Republicans to get things done. As a senior advisor to President Clinton, he assembled coalitions for welfare reform and North American Free Trade Agreement. Another plus: Emanuel is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which is sure to pay off in cooperation between the White House and Congress.

Planning for the first 100 days is already well under way, but Obama and his staff will keep most of the details under wraps. They know there can be only one president at a time, and they don't want anyone to doubt who is in charge now.

One issue won't wait until Jan. 20: the economy. Ending the recession and reigniting growth will dominate Obama's first year -- maybe even his entire term. The election didn't change the economic fundamentals, and neither can Obama. Democrats are planning a two-part stimulus -- a bill with between $60 billion and $100 billion for jobless benefits, food stamps and infrastructure spending to be passed by this month's lame-duck Congress and a more sweeping measure in January or February. It will include tax cuts for the most Americans, with the aim of getting more money in people's pockets quickly. Congress will pay for this tax relief by canceling the scheduled repeal of the estate tax. Instead of disappearing in 2010, the $3.5-million exemption and 45% maximum tax rate in effect for 2009 will be extended for at least a year. But the weak economy will delay Obama's tax rate hikes on high-incomers until 2010 at the earliest.

Obama will get involved quickly in managing the debt rescue program. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wants Obama's aides to help choose top personnel to administer the program, and he wants his successor to start work alongside him as soon as possible.

Best bets for the Treasury job are Timothy Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Larry Summers who held the position under Clinton, or N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine, an ex-senator and former head of Goldman Sachs. Geithner, at 47, has the energy and experience without the political baggage that Summers and Corzine carry. And he's had a role in managing the crisis.

Look for Paul Volcker to get a significant job, perhaps heading a board created to oversee an overhaul of the entire U.S. financial regulatory structure. The former head of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was an early supporter of Obama and has served as a key economic adviser.

Setting a legislative agenda for Obama's first year will be another challenge. Democrats will go for some low-hanging fruit, such as more health care for kids, federal stem cell research and making equal pay claims easier. Meanwhile, they'll map strategy for health care, energy policy and other big picture plans, such as overhauls of immigration law, Social Security and Medicare, which require compromise and broad bipartisan support.

Having Democratic majority in the Congress certainly helps, but Democrats are a rather diverse group. Obama, Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada won't easily control them. Many conservative Democrats were elected this year and in 2006, and they often split with their more liberal leaders. They're also much more concerned about deficits, which will force delays in programs favored by Obama. On top of that, congressional Democrats, especially chairmen, who were stymied by Bush for eight years have their own set of legislative priorities, many of which Obama will likely reject. Certainly on some issues, it will be like herding cats, even if they are all in the same party and all of them voted for Obama to begin with.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.

Discuss

Reader Comments (13)

Posted by: James at 11/10/2008 10:22:14 AM

Finally an end to the Bush Era. I have lived under both Democrats and republicans and can say that I am extremely pleased that Barack Obama won this election. The right wingers would have bankrupt the country and made us vulnerable to communist aggression. Congrats Barack!

Posted by: Mark at 11/10/2008 11:34:23 AM

Way to go Obama! Now, let's all work together to keep our country from becoming too European -- Socialism, if you recall, is a form of government where the government represents the people and controls the major industries. (Exactly what is the percentage of taxation in Great Britain?). Remember in 2006 the Democrats took the majority of state governorships and the US House and Senate. Could a lot of our current crisis be the result of legislation enacted in the past two years? I kept asking during the election, but no one remembered, why the price of gasoline when over $4.00 per gallon -- the not so obvious result has been the desire of Americans not to purchase new cars. So you've got to ask, who will pay for the automobile industry's bailout or will the government just start making cars... oh yea that was socialism? Anybody want to buy a Yugo?

Posted by: JD at 11/10/2008 11:55:02 AM

I've said this so often lately: It's a good thing Obama isn't half as vitrolic as many of his supporters. Still, I don't see the "change" this article claims. Obama won using the same partisan lies as always. He said all our problems were Bush's fault, he tied McCain to Bush, and he tried to convince us that things couldn't possibly get worse. How is that any different from what we've seen before? Obama has polish in spades, but when push comes to shove, he's still playing the same old game.

Posted by: Dave Burda at 11/10/2008 12:07:29 PM

This story is so off-topic and has nothing to do with personal finance. Kiplinger's losing it's edge.

Posted by: Laura at 11/10/2008 12:35:39 PM

I think that it is better to wait and see what happens, I do not feel that the economic problems are all goverment I think that people living extremely beyond there means and then expecting someone else to pay the bill. I have worked very hard with enough to live and have a little fun time too. If you want the economy to survive then reduce the expenditures you want companies to pay and make a more modest pay, or there won't be any jobs to be had for any of us. Just my opinion!!

Posted by: Joe Honick at 11/10/2008 02:24:14 PM

Some fascinating reading here from both the analysis and the comments. Employees and their benefits did not make lousy corporate decisions that have resulted in a birth of corporate socialism to "bail out" companies. Had social groups swarmed to DC for such money, the hue and cry from the right would have been deafening. An endless and expensive war built on false premises and sold with a billion in private PR firm investments have drained our confidence and our coffers.

Posted by: Richard P. Voss at 11/10/2008 02:53:23 PM

Your 10/31/08 Tax Letter says that Obama "wants to raise the top rate to 39.6% for married couples with incomes over $250,000 and singles over $200,000, and "Congress will almost certainly agree to this change and make it effective for all of ’09"; however, your 11/7/08 Kiplinger Letter says the "weak economy will delay Obama’s tax hikes on high-incomers till 2010 at the earliest." So which is it? One says 39.6% will become effective 1/1/09 and the other 1/1/10 or later. I understand that different editors might reach different opinions, and this is nothing more than uncertain political prognostication to begin with. But the question is of enormous importance for 2008 year-end tax planning for high-income taxpayers, so I certainly hope your editors can dig up the real intentions from the Obama transition folks.

Posted by: ram at 11/10/2008 03:07:00 PM

I can only hope and wish what you say is true. As JD said, I was very intrigued by Obama at the start but at each point in the campaign where he could have signaled that he was different he did the conventional thing. Refusing to debate Hillary once he took the lead, passing on public financing once he determined he could collect more money privately, passing up the oppurtunity to have a series of townhall debates with McCain which alone would have gone a long way to creating a more civil campaign. Playing the race card on Bill Clinton and the Social Security card on McCain among other things. It seemed his campaign was notable not for its departure from the conventions of presidential campaigns but in its comformity. Once in the lead, he ran a conventional Rose Garden campaign designed to avoid mistakes rather than inform the voters. Not aware of a single decision he made that differed from what the "traditional" decision would have been. Ran to the base in the primaries, ran to the center during the general election.

Posted by: Randy at 11/10/2008 04:12:37 PM

Your column regurgitates the conventional wisdom very nicely, but it really says nothing. To say that he will govern from "the center" is a tautology. The center is somewhere around the middle of where the American people are right now. Polls show (and have shown for years) that significant majorities favor universal health care, abortion rights, withdrawal from Iraq, and stand with the progressive wing of the Democratic party on numerous other issues. If you mean that Obama will govern from "the center" of that spectrum, than I agree with you. If you mean, as I suspect you do, that he will govern from some imagined center on which Republicans and Demnocrats can agree, join hands, and sing "kumbayaa," then you are wrong and I think you are the one who will be disappointed. Over the past 2 election cycles, the Democrats have gained the White House, at least 50 House seats, at least 12 Senate seats, 7 governorships and control of 7 state legislatures. Bush's approval rating hovers in the low 20s, and we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Obama has a mandate for bold progressive action, and he will use it.

Posted by: Peter Blank at 11/10/2008 04:12:38 PM

Hello, Peter Blank, editor of The Kiplinger Tax Letter here. To address Mr. Voss' question: The reason for the discrepancy is simple. Additional reporting after the election with Obama aides indicated a change in plans. They no longer are gung ho to repeal the Bush tax cuts for upper-incomers immediately, because they are a bit leery of raising tax rates in a recession. They would not rule out doing so in 2010 if the economy recovers.

Posted by: Kevin McCormally at 11/10/2008 04:51:47 PM

This is Kevin McCormally of Kiplinger with a quick note to David Burda...and anyone who read his comment calling this item "off topic" because it doesn't focus on personal finance. Two things: First, I think how the future president will govern will have a LOT to do with all of our pocketbooks; Second, Kiplinger is a lot more than personal finance. Although our magazine was the first of its kind (debuting in 1947, 25 years before the first real competitor, Money), our company was founded in the 1920s to provide business and economic forecasting and advice for business managers and others in leadership positions. Of course, what goes on in the federal government plays a pivotal role, so we keep a close eye on the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and the regulatory bodies that surround our offices here in Washington, D.C. We share our findings and our judgments with readers of The Kiplinger Letter, The Kiplinger Tax Letter and several other publications...in addition to our terrific personal finance magazine. And, of course, on our award-winning Business Resource Center, the part of our award-winning Web site where this item was published. This isn't off topic. It's right on! --Kevin McCormally Editorial Director Kiplinger

Posted by: Swede at 11/11/2008 12:44:16 AM

Obama is a deer caught in the headlights...This was revealed in his acceptance speech and body language which loudly said: "What in the hell have I done?" His selection of Clinton cronies tells us he lacks experience and guts. His stammering and stuttering without a teleprompter is frightening. Who is this political "creature"? Just another hollow politician who can read a speech written by someone else. Have you ever truly heard Obama evoke patriotism and love of country??? He's a loner who has climbed to the top by deftly manipulating his way up the political ladder with no record of accomplishment to justify his political existence. The USA has been conned big time!!! God save the USA!

Posted by: Carol Gerstman at 11/11/2008 01:31:42 AM

I hope you are right. I am a Jewish lady with a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist political position. A president with a Muslim father, education and name frankly scares me to death. I also do not understand why he did not have to prove his citizenship by birth when it is clearly in doubt. That said, now that he is elected, he is my Commander-in-Chief (I am also a Vietnam Veteran) and I will certainly give him a chance. I pray you are right and that he does rule from a centrist position. If you are wrong, we may be in for a very difficult four years.

Today's Video More Videos >>

Extra Cash for the Holidays

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement