Jonathan Chait’s entire interview with the president is fascinating. It offers Obama’s perspective on his own presidency, which is not the objective reality, but it is full of insights.
For instance, Chait asks, “So it’s January 27, 2009, and you hear Boehner say he is against the stimulus. I’ve heard complaints from Republicans about what you’re like in these meetings. They say you’re didactic and you lecture. In a situation like that, are you trying to discuss Keynesian theory and saying, ‘Do you believe in stimulus?’ At what level is the discussion held?”
Obama first responds, “You know, the truth of the matter is, it’s hard for me to characterize myself. You’re probably better off talking to some staff members who sit in on these meetings.” He’s right about that: none of us can objectively assess how we appear in interactions with others, especially in tense and difficult situations. No one would accuse this president of being unprepared, uninformed, or intentionally offensive, but it’s possible that his professorial manner alienates some people who read him as acting superior. As he acknowledges, he’s not the one to judge that.
He does, however, review his good relationships with Republicans in the Illinois legislature. He believes his problem with Republicans in Washington is strategic rather than personal: they decided to block his entire agenda in 2009, both to reverse their electoral losses and to appease their base.
Then he gives a window into how the conversations would actually unfold:
Look, typically what would happen, certainly at the outset, it would be that I would say, “We’ve got a big problem: We’re losing 800,000 jobs a month. Every economist I’ve talked to, including Republican economists, thinks that we need to do a big stimulus, and I’m willing to work with you to figure out how this package looks.”
Note the combination of a policy argument–which could be considered didactic, although it’s also correct–followed by an invitation to discuss.
And typically, what you’d get would be, “Well, Mr. President, I’m not sure that this big spending approach is the right one, and families are tightening their belts right now, and I don’t hear a lot of my constituents saying that they want a bunch of big bureaucracies taking their hard-earned tax money and wasting it on a bunch of make-work projects around the country. So we think that government’s got to do that same thing that families do.” So you kind of hit that ideological wall. I’m sure that after about four or five of those sessions, at some point, I might say, “Look, guys, we have a history here dating back to the Great Depression,” and I might at that point try to introduce some strong policy arguments. What I can say unequivocally is that there has never been a time in which I did not say, “Look, you tell me how you want to do this. Give me a sense of how you want to approach it.”
A common criticism of the president is that he’s too cerebral; he doesn’t know how to appeal to self-interest and make a deal. He offers three responses to that charge.
First, Republicans did not think it was in their self-interest to negotiate at all. “During the health-care debate, you know, there was a point in time where, after having had multiple negotiations with [Iowa senator Chuck] Grassley … in exasperation I finally just said …, ‘Is there any form of health-care reform that you can support?’ and he shrugged and looked a little sheepish and said, ‘Probably not.'”
Second, Obama insists that he did work the phones. “It’s interesting, in 2011, when the left had really gotten irritated with me because of the budget negotiations, there was always this contrast between Obama and LBJ, who really worked Congress. But I tell you, those two weeks, that was full LBJ. I think [White House photographer] Pete Souza has a picture series of every meeting and phone call that I was making during the course of that, which is actually pretty fun to see.”
The president calling a Member of Congress on March 19, 2010
Third, a 21st century president just doesn’t have the bargaining tools that were available to an LBJ, not to mention an Abe Lincoln. “And one of the things that’s changed from the Johnson era obviously is I don’t have a postmaster job. … Good-government reforms have hamstrung an administration, which I think is for the most part for the best. But it means that what you’re really saying to them is, ‘This is the right thing to do and I’ll come to your fund-raiser in Podunk and I will make sure that I’ve got your back.'”
I’d add that not only patronage but the whole legislative process has changed in ways that reduce a president’s ability to deal transactionally with Members of Congress. Just to name one change, Congress now sends relatively few bills to the president, and they tend to be omnibus compromises that he more or less has to sign. Thus he can’t use a targeted veto threat to get a Member’s vote. Johnson received about eight times more bills from Congress than Obama gets.
The president is good at understanding and addressing differences of principle. For instance, “[Former congressman] Bart Stupak was a very sincere, pro-life legislator and a Democrat, a really good man who worked really hard with me to try to get to yes and ended up getting there, working along with Sister Carol [Keehan], the head of the Catholic hospitals, despite strong opposition from the Catholic bishops. So in some cases there really were legitimate difficulties, substantive issues that had to be worked through.”
The president has not been as successful at winning zero-sum negotiations, but I have often felt that he’s played a weak hand pretty well.
Our 2016 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation is just around the corner – we couldn’t be more excited, and we hope you are too! It’s not too late to register for what is going to be an absolutely amazing gathering! As if you needed more reason beyond our incredible schedule and workshop session list, we also want to share a preview of the two great panel discussions we’ll feature during the plenaries to convince all those fence-sitters to register today!
During two of NCDD 2016 plenaries, we’ll be addressing two interconnected parts of what it takes to bridge our divides – stories and resources. Since 2002, the financial and media landscape of civic life has fundamentally changed to our work’s detriment. Funding on the Left and Right – but not the middle – has skyrocketed, and media spheres have become more siloed and divided than ever.
Money and media attention for the “problem-solving sector” – in which the NCDD network plays a pivotal role – has significantly diminished, despite continued growth and innovation in the sector. So at NCDD 2016, we are addressing these issues directly by providing spaces in the conference where we can take an in-depth look as a field at why so many of our initiatives underfunded and under-reported and how we can reverse this trend to create new momentum for our work. These spaces will take the form of interactive panel events on the topic of philanthropy and media.
Our closing plenary will feature a conversation with representatives from the media who are engaging with society’s divides and the public in innovative ways. We’ll be hearing from journalists and other media representatives about the ways they are engaging with divided communities and divisive issues, discuss how we can increase the visibility of this kind of work, and learn from and envision new ways engagement practitioners and journalists can partner with one another. In short, our media colleagues will help us explore what’s happening now, what’s emerging for the future, and how we can work together to create innovative ways to bridge our divides and shift the toxic political discourse.
During this final plenary session, we will also ask the panelists to reflect on what they heard during the conference, what excites them, and what possibilities they see for lifting up or creating stories of those who are bridging our divides.
Peggy Holman (moderator), Co-Founder of Journalism That Matters
Peggy is a nationally known author and consultant and is a recognized leader in deploying group processes that directly involve hundreds, or thousands, of people in organizations or communities in achieving breakthroughs. In 2001, Peggy co-founded Journalism That Matters (JTM) with three career journalists. JTM has built a national coalition of journalists, educators, reformers and others to support people who are reshapingthe emerging news and information ecosystem. 
Christa Case Bryant, Politics Editor for the Christian Science Monitor
Christa is The Christian Science Monitor’s new Politics editor. She comes to this post fresh off a 2015-16 stint as a Nieman fellow at Harvard, where she explored new models for digital journalism and audience engagement. Ms. Bryant previously served as the Monitor’s Jerusalem bureau chief.
Chris Faraone, Co-Founder of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism
Chris is an award-winning journalist (AAN, NENPA), a former Boston Phoenix Staff Writer, and the News + Features Editor of DigBoston, a co-founder of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism, and an adjunct professor of communications at Salem State University. He has more than ten years of media experience, has published four books, and has written features for publications ranging from Columbia Journalism Review to Esquire.
Linda Miller, Director of Network Journalism & Inclusion, American Public Media Group
Linda Miller became a journalist in the small towns of Wyoming, where newspapers were pieced together with hot wax and border tape, and held together by trust, transparency, and a partnership with readers. At American Public Media, she is still helping journalists deepen relationships with the communities they serve, albeit with better technology. Miller runs the Public Insight Network (PIN), a nationally recognized platform for making the news media more relevant, relational, and inclusive.
Ellen Mayer, Community Manager, Hearken
Ellen Mayer became an early Hearken convert when she interned and reported stories for WBEZ’s Curious City. Now she’s excited to foster a collaborative network of public powered journalists as Hearken’s community manager. Previous hats include: digital outreach coordinator for social justice documentaries and producer for the music podcast Pitch. Excited about: media diversity, One Direction, and Chicago rap.
Michelle Ferrier, Ph.D., E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, Ohio University
Michelle Ferrier is an associate professor in the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. She is the president of Journalism that Matters and the founder of TrollBusters.com, a rescue service for women writers and journalists experiencing online harassment. She is the principal investigator for the Media Deserts Project that uses GIS technologies to examine places in the United States where fresh news and information are lacking.
A frank exchange with funders and philanthropists is urgently needed. On the second day of the conference, our panelists and conference participants will focus on the financial constraints — and opportunities — facing our field. Panelists will share their experiences around funding “bridging the divides” projects and organizations, and share practical ideas about how leaders in this field can be more effective advocates for their work during conversations with funders. Meanwhile, conference participants will challenge panelists with their provocative, timely questions and commentary about the role that funders play in the development of the D&D field.
Mark Gerzon (moderator), President of Mediators Foundation
Mark is an author, leadership expert, and veteran convener of cross-party conversations. His primary current focus is having a positive, transformative impact impact on the 2016 election. His newest book, The Reunited States of America: How We Can Bridge the Partisan Divide, shares the basic principles and profiles the leading figures in this movement.
Kahlil Byrd, Forward Progress in Politics
Kahlil Byrd’s expertise is building and leading large, disruptive technology based bipartisan reform organizations. He was president of the education reform effort StudentsFirst and cofounder and CEO of Americans Elect. His current firm, Forward Progress in Politics (FPPCO) is building a national bipartisan community of funders committed to essential and aggressive issue reform and political transformation. 
John Hardin, Charles Koch Foundation
John is director of university relations at the Charles Koch Foundation, a charitable organization that supports hundreds of schools and scholars working to expand opportunities on campuses across the country. He manages relationships with partner universities, organizations, and donors to support programs that explore the ideas of a free society.
David Nevins, Bridge Alliance
David is President of the Bridge Alliance, an alliance of 43 organizations who have come together in civility, respect, and goodwill advocating “Country Before Party.” David is a Fellow at the Aspen Institute with a particular interest in supporting the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, a program designed to support political leaders committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue. Additionally, Nevins has established and is involved with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program, a signature initiative within The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State.
Leslie Pine, The Philanthropic Initiative
Leslie is Managing Partner at the Philanthropic Initiative (TPI) and has been the principal architect of their creative approach to program design and strategy, managing TPI’s program staff in the research, design, implementation, and evaluation of a wide range of innovative philanthropic strategies and initiatives. She has designed a range of philanthropic strategies including various youth development and mentoring initiatives; grants initiatives to stimulate innovation in K-12 schools and in community programs; corporate models to promote employee giving and community engagement; and initiatives designed to leverage grassroots community improvement efforts.
We can’t wait to be part of the discussion with these incredible journalists and philanthropists. And we know that you won’t either so be sure that you’ve registered today to join us in Boston later this month!
