From the Chicago Tribune
Business, labor await clarification from Obama
President-elect’s “pragmatic progressivism” leaves them hanging
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Washington Bureau
12:28 AM CST, January 18, 2009
WASHINGTON-Some liberals might think that R. Bruce Josten has no business visiting President-elect Barack Obama’s transition office once, let alone 16 times. That’s because Josten is the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief antagonist to one of the leading interest groups-big labor-that helped Obama win the presidency.
Yet, after talking to the transition staff, Josten has pronounced himself satisfied that the incoming administration will consider the needs of corporate America.
At the same time, labor union officials feel confident about their relationship with Obama. They hope they can persuade the incoming president to press for their No. 1 goal, a new law that would make it easier for workers to form unions. The proposed law is so disliked by business that blocking it has become a top priority of the Chamber of Commerce.
Eventually, Obama is going to have to make up his mind on whether to lobby for the law, and one of these groups is going to be unhappy. But on the eve of his inauguration, it’s not clear which one.
It is that lack of clarity that has come to define Obama since he decisively won an election 21/2 months ago and began building a new administration. Now that style will be tested as he begins governing, shortly after he is sworn in as president Tuesday.
Obama’s recent predecessors, such as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush-all of whom brought a change in political party to the White House-took the oath of office following transition periods in which they laid out concrete ideological agendas, conservative and pro-business in the cases of Reagan and Bush, and more centrist in the case of Clinton.
But Obama has charted a different course, studiously avoiding firm commitments on some of the most controversial policy questions, while portraying himself as transcending ideology.
Repeatedly, he has described himself as a pragmatist, pledging to make decisions based on “what works.” He has even coined a new term for this approach, describing himself as a “pragmatic progressive.” Interest groups of all stripes have been welcomed with open ears into the transition offices.
Obama’s non-partisan tone has won praise from across the political spectrum. He enjoys approval ratings in the 70s. And his top aides say that this style is not surprising, coming from a 47-year-old newcomer to the national stage who was not shaped by the old battles that have defined Washington.
“Obama just comes without the ideological wars and baggage of a lot of what’s gone on in American politics in the last generation,” said his transition director, John Podesta, who as a former chief of staff to Clinton and founder of the liberal Center for American Progress is a veteran of those battles. “So maybe it’s a bit easier for him to navigate in a sort of post-partisan terrain.”
But whether Obama can remain true to his pragmatic ideals once he takes office and faces difficult decisions remains an open question.
Interest groups across Washington are asking how a pragmatist will ultimately respond to their needs-particularly when each side believes that its argument alone is rooted in logic.
“There are going to be some broken eggs at some point,” said Bill Samuel, a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO labor federation, which is counting on Obama to back the legislation making it easier to form unions.
Obama’s pragmatism has already been tested by Congress.
He tried to woo Republicans and business leaders last month by offering huge tax cuts in his proposed economic stimulus package. Then, when Democrats and liberals objected last week, he backed down and suggested that the tax-cut component might shrink.
Another issue likely to provide an early challenge to Obama’s pragmatism is the law that labor unions want, known as “card-check.” It would require businesses to recognize a new union if a majority of workers signaled an interest in organizing by signing cards-a change from current law that requires a secret-ballot election. Labor leaders believe the secret-ballot requirement makes organizing more difficult and gives too much power to companies, which coordinate the elections.
Businesses say that giving unions greater leverage could further harm already-struggling companies.
Obama promised during the campaign to support the new law, and labor unions mobilized grass-roots machinery on his behalf. But Obama has barely discussed it since the election, allowing tension to build between the Chamber of Commerce, which has spent $10 million in recent months to oppose the proposed law, and labor groups that last week launched a new, $3 million ad campaign.
While labor officials say they remain confident of Obama’s support, business leaders took great comfort when Obama told The Washington Post last week that he was wary of pressing for the union measure ahead of broader economic needs.
“If we’re losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned,” Obama told the newspaper.
Some liberals see Obama’s approach as a threat.
His appointment of a national security team that was supportive of the 2003 Iraq invasion and his cautions that he might put off closing the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay despite a campaign promise to do so quickly are raising concern among anti-war activists.
They have also questioned Obama’s decision to keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his post. And Obama’s Pentagon team has asked the Bush administration official in charge of detainee policy to stay on, at least temporarily.
Gary Leupp, a Tufts University history professor and war opponent, said that the president-elect’s claim to be a “pragmatic progressive” meant “absolutely nothing.”
“He’s trying to obscure the fact that when you look at the résumés of these guys you realize that their way of approaching things is very much similar to the people that they’re replacing,” Leupp said.
Some environmental advocates are also quietly seething over Obama’s decision to appoint a longtime friend, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, to run a little-known but powerful office within the White House that has review power over all proposed federal regulations affecting industry, from airlines to power plants to manufacturing plants.
Sunstein has expressed concerns about the costs that businesses would pay if climate regulations took effect, and he wrote a paper questioning the constitutionality of the Labor Department’s oversight of workplace safety.
“I am heartbroken,” said Rena Steinzor, a professor of environmental law at the University of Maryland, who advises Democratic congressional offices on regulatory issues. “This is a very disconcerting appointment, a bad sign for those of us who saw this as a time to revive the federal regulatory agencies” that were pruned during the Bush era.
A leading lobbyist for oil and coal interests said he is “heartened” by the appointment of Sunstein and others to big jobs in the Obama administration.
“These are best-in-class selections made with less concern about their ideology than their abilities,” said Scott Segal, a lawyer and lobbyist for energy interests.
Energy lobbyists like Segal had been wary of Obama’s enthusiasm for limits on carbon emissions as part of a “cap and trade” system to reduce global warming. And some business lobbyists are skeptical of the aggressive environmentalism espoused in the past by Carol Browner, Obama’s coordinator of energy and climate policy.
But they say their concerns are alleviated somewhat by the presence of other White House officials, such as National Security Adviser James Jones, who until recently worked for a Chamber of Commerce-led energy working group.
Energy policy was the main topic recently when Josten, the chamber lobbyist, joined other business advocates at the transition office for a two-hour sit-down with Browner.
“They seemed open and interested in our viewpoints,” Josten said.
