Trust but verify
WASHINGTON Suppose he is serious.
What if Barack Obama is telling the truth about his own beliefs when he says that neither party by itself can realistically hope to solve the challenges facing the United States?
Suppose he means it when he says that after the shellacking he and his fellow Democrats received in the midterm elections, he is ready and willing to hear the Republicans’ ideas for dealing with jobs, taxes, energy and even nuclear weapons control.
I know that is supposing a lot—so much that it seems impossible. It’s more like the script for a Broadway musical than a plausible plotline for Washington. But nonetheless, suppose that he is serious when he says, over and over, as he did on Thanksgiving Day, that if we want to “accelerate this recovery” and attack the backlog of lost jobs, “we won’t do it as any one political party. We’ve got to do it as one people.”
Should Republicans in their expanded ranks in Congress believe this? Perhaps one or two may remember that back in 2004, when Obama was free to speak his own mind as the newly nominated Democratic candidate for senator from Illinois, he told the Democratic National Convention exactly the same thing.
In the normally partisan keynote address that launched him on the path to the White House, the young state legislator chose to address himself not to his fellow Democrats but to his fellow Americans. And to challenge to them to seek and find what they have in common, not simply what divides them.
Suppose there is a chance that he is serious—that after two years of trying to govern through one party, a party that held commanding majorities in the House and Senate but now has lost them, two years with landmark accomplishments but ultimate frustration of his hopes to change Washington, he has reverted to his original philosophy of governing.
What would Republicans do if they thought there was a chance of that being true?
They would do what Ronald Reagan always recommended in dealing with the Russians: Trust but verify.
They would test him. As they should.
When the leaders of the congressional Republicans meet this week with Obama at the White House bipartisan summit he proposed immediately after Election Day and they asked to postpone, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell should be prepared with a set of challenges to Obama’s seriousness.
They might start with an area that traditionally has been beyond politics: national security. The president has said it is a high priority for him to see the New START treaty with Russia ratified during this lame-duck session of Congress.
Jon Kyl, the Republican No. 2 man in the Senate and its lead voice on nuclear policy, has raised a number of issues he says must be resolved before such approval is given. Kyl and Obama have been negotiating through intermediaries and have satisfied each other on most but not all points.
The Republicans could ask Obama to sit down directly with Kyl and see if they can compromise on the rest. That would be a fair first test of Obama’s sincerity.
Another involves the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts. Almost everyone agrees they should be renewed for the 98 percent of American families earning below $250,000 a year. The president opposes, but Republicans support, extending them also for the top 2 percent.
That is another issue on which Boehner and McConnell would be justified in challenging Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to negotiate with them and the top Republicans on the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees. And they could ask that the newly confirmed administration budget chief, Jacob Lew, fresh from his experience as deputy secretary of state, be added to the mix, with hopes that his diplomatic skills can help find a way to close the gap.
Those would be two ways of testing whether Obama is serious, as I believe the evidence shows that he is.
Trust but verify. A good Republican approach.
David Broder is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may write to him via e-mail at davidbroder@washpost.com.

Nov 30, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dave,
Maybe that would be a good start, this thing where we send money to D.C., and they parse it back out stinks. I'm angry that Bill Gates gets to steal jobs away from our kids because our schools cannot manage Statistics and IT tests. Fire the whole bunch, they are not getting the job done.
Nov 30, 2010 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hoenstly -- there is no middle ground. The sides are so far apart on fundamentally what should or should not be done that I see no middle ground. And after the last 2 yrs, I would prefer to see all stick to their guns. If they really believe what they say, there is no middle.
Nov 30, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Julie: The only thing the national gubmint should do involving education is to abolish the Dept. of Education. The feds have no constitutional authority to stick their noses into education. That is a states rights issue.
Nov 29, 2010 at 9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
I predict that our President holds his ground for the next two years. I am glad that he passed the HCB, and proud of those who voted for it. He needs to dig in and go after education, that's a neutral topic, our schools are a wreck.
Nov 29, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gridlock would be a welcomed situation given the past two years.
Nov 29, 2010 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave is right! Gridlock will let the economy recover on its own, which it will. Congress only gums up the works.
Nov 29, 2010 at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Personally, I pray for complete and total gridlock. I hope that Congress passes exactly zero bills in the next session. I hope they cannot agree on the color of the paint in the House gym.
The less they do, the better for the country, because most of what they do is harmful.
Nov 29, 2010 at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
ms_sassy is absolutely correct. No time for the blame game. We cannot change the past only learn from it. Let's hope all those in Washington can work together for the good of the people.
Nov 28, 2010 at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
well, the reality is that for both parties to make any substantial changes that are NECESSARY for this country to survive, BOTH (all?) parties MUST set aside their personal preferences and meet at the table like grown-ups, not teenagers. It's not a popularity contest. It's what's in the best interest of the PEOPLE in this nation.
mock him all you want to, but the longer you go around blaming one person for the state of this country's affairs, the longer it will take to reach some compromises and change the direction we are heading. Right now, we're heading straight toward a disaster.
Nov 28, 2010 at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
A voice of reason? How refreshing. Let's see which,if either, political party will attempt to meet. I hope that with power split between them, the politicians will try to work together.
Nov 28, 2010 at 6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good luck with that.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.