Robert Litan is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and has directed economic research at the Brookings Institution, the Kauffman Foundation, and Bloomberg Government. His most recent book is “Trillion Dollar Economists.” He is on Twitter:@BobLitan.
So far, the principal narrative in the presidential race, in both parties, has been the insurgents vs. the establishment. If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each can build on the momentum from their Saturday victories in South Carolina and Nevada – and there is a good chance each will – then the narrative eventually will switch to: which dealmaker do Americans want to be their president?
Mr. Trump makes a virtue out of his deal making, trumpeting (pun intended) his book “Art of the Deal” as guideline of how he’d lead the country. Mrs. Clinton’s main campaign theme, aside from her extensive resume, is that she “can get things done,” which is just another way of seeing that she’d try to make deals, too. (I count Gov. Kasich and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as dealmakers, too, but both their candidacies face uphill climbs).
I underscore the word “try” since it is likely that both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton would have problems with Congress. As a Republican, a President Trump would not only face partisan opposition from Democrats, especially if they take back the Senate, but on a number of issues from establishment Republicans in Congress. Given the high likelihood that the House will remain in Republican hands, Mrs. Clinton would have to try to find common ground with at least one, and possibly two, Congressional chambers. It is far from clear that even with the best of charm offensives with members of Congress a President Clinton would be any more successful at reaching deals on her spending and tax proposals – which Republicans strongly oppose — than President Obama has been.
Of course, there is still a slim chance that at least one of the parties will nominate a philosophical “purist” likely to be more resistant to compromise: Sens. Cruz and Sanders.
Mr. Cruz wears his “no compromise” status proudly. Mr. Sanders claims, implausibly in my view, that there would no need to compromise since his election would only be possible with a “political revolution.” That may well be true, but even with such a revolution, it is highly unlikely that the House will turn Democratic, and the Republicans there almost surely would be even more opposed to Mr. Sanders’s proposals than Mrs. Clinton’s. So far, Mr. Sanders has given little hint he would be prepared to accept much less ambitious versions of his ideas.
Sen. Marco Rubio appears to be more of a wild card. He was one of the “Gang of 8” Senators who drafted a compromise immigration proposal, but subsequently withdrew his support after opposition to the idea emerged within his own party. Mr. Rubio might be able to find common ground with some Democrats on his proposals to subsidize low wage workers, which he discussed in speeches before the campaign, but has not stressed during it. It is even conceivable he would seek middle ground on his tax proposal, which is not as sweeping as those of his now principal Republican rivals.
On the other hand, Mr. Rubio has taken a harder, no compromise line on social issues and on national defense. If he manages to gain the nomination, as now many in the Republican establishment appear to want, it is difficult to assess how much deal making he would attempt and on what issues. Perhaps that ambiguity could work in his favor: attracting the support of both the ideological purists within his party, and those who want the next president to show flexibility, at least some of the time.
In Clinton vs. Trump, Americans Play Let’s Make a Deal
Post a Comment