You know, a Republican Congress might be a good thing for Obama

Obama’s tenure so far is strikingly similar to ’93 and ’94 when another young Democratic president entered office with high expectations and soon found himself down in the polls and battling a wave of conservative sentiment. The advisers around Obama would never admit it, but losing one or even both houses of Congress might be better for Obama than the gridlock paralyzing his agenda. History in our partisan age suggests that for a president to be truly successful and get big legislative achievements, a divided Congress may be necessary. Only then does each party have some stake in governing, and maneuvering room to compromise.

Clinton never would have been able to sign welfare reform if the Democrats controlled Congress, and the same is true of the balanced budget that Clinton achieved in ’97. These were Republican initiatives that many Democrats would have resisted. It seems absurd that with 59 votes in the Senate, Obama can’t get health-care reform done. That’s because embedded in that 59 are a number of Democrats who will not vote for health care again. There’s a different mindset among Democrats in February than December—they’re looking out for themselves, not for him, and they’re thinking parochially when it comes to legislation. If Obama wants a jobs bill, he will have to go up to Capitol Hill and be engaged and tell the Democrats what he must have for his political survival—and for theirs, come November.