A fb response to an article about criticizing Obama.

A response to a facebook friend who wrote this about the article: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/22/the-strategic-failure-of-the-purist-lefts-persistent-attacks-on-president-obama/


'Amen. 'Purists' of any type don't win elections - or continue to win elections. Don't think for a moment that Obama's actions wouldn't have been different thus far, if we lived in a world where doing every last thing he believes in would allow him to continue in office, doing a better job there than anyone else. We all know that we live in a world where appearing Far Left would jeopardize his re-election... and where would we be then? President Romney?? None of it is worth anything if he can't stay another term.'

I'm no purist, but I do think Obama deserves criticism for his failure to negotiate on tough issues. Like David Brooks and others have noted extensively, he caves before negotiations start.

This is quite different than the example set by Ury and Fisher, two most noted experts on negotiation:

"Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not harm the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account." 'Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In' -- Ury, Fisher and Patton

I think that Obama does the latter two things well. I think he is an efficient pragmatist who works to improve relationships between his party and the other. But I don't believe that he is very skilled at interest-based bargaining. And he often resorts to positional bargaining.

When he does, he often takes a position then gives it up without much debate or discussion. He is usually the first to concede, and continues to do so until the essence of the original interest is lost.

Instead, he ought to negotiate from a position of combined interests, like with the payroll tax extension, where both parties wanted the same thing. They really couldn't afford not to find a common ground on which to stand.

The President ought to be better able to discern where that is, and work toward it. For whatever reason, Obama hasn't been able to do so, and I don't totally fault him for that. But I do fault him for giving up the things which the American people supported (like a public non-profit option for health insurance) before the dirty work of negotiation actually began.
And I am no lefty. I'm a left-leaning centrist, recovering hard-right religious conservative. Seriously.