Trump can try compromise from position of strength
Michael Gerson
The central promise of the Trump administration — the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — has failed. The central premise of the Trump administration — that Donald Trump is a brilliant negotiator — has been discredited. In the process of losing a legislative battle, Trump has lost the theory of his presidency.
It was a profoundly personal rejection. Trump’s ignorance of policy details alienated legislators. His illtimed threats backfired. His bonhomie fell flat.
The lessons run deeper. Trump ran for office arguing, in essence: Just give my party control and massive change will quickly follow. Many Americans believed in this promise of winnertake-all government.
Total control is intoxicating. The winners feel like they have a mandate, even a mission. But the losers know, if they maintain partisan discipline and prevent achievements of the other side, they have a chance of winning it all back. This leads to a cycle of hubris and obstructionism.
There is only one way to break this cycle. Someone must do genuine outreach, involving the credible promise of compromise, from a position of strength. It is the winners who must act first. Then it is the political losers who have the responsibility to reward good faith.
Obamacare may not be the most promising ground for agreement. The same may be true for tax reform. But genuine negotiation might be possible on an infrastructure bill. The same might be true on legislation designed to increase the skills — and deal with the dislocation — of 38 percent of workers whose jobs are threatened by automation. And at least one culture-war issue belongs on the list: religious liberty.
Many religious conservatives imagined they would, at this point, be in a defensive crouch. The Obama administration had required the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide insurance coverage for sterilizations and the emergency contraceptive Plan B. Religious conservatives expected the Hillary Clinton administration to require the distribution of condoms at Mass (I exaggerate, a little).
Instead, unexpectedly, religious conservatives find themselves in a position of relative strength. It is possible they will squander their standing on repeal of the Johnson Amendment that restricts political endorsements from the pulpit — a change that few have demanded and none really need. Instead, they could use their influence to encourage genuine pluralism, with benefits that are shared and nonsectarian.
Any realistic agreement would need to include broad anti-discrimination protections in employment and services — including for gay people — outside of the strong carve-out for religious nonprofits.
This is consistent with what Jonathan Rauch calls “the obvious compromise: protections for gay people plus exemptions for religious objectors.” In practice, this would allow religious people to organize colleges, hospitals and charities according to their beliefs. But the cake baker would need to bake for everyone. The florist would need to sell to everyone.
The strongest advocates on both sides of this issue will find any compromise abhorrent. But it could be powerful for religious conservatives to attempt outreach from a position of political strength, And Donald Trump, oddly, may be the leader to get this kind of deal. He broke ground in recognizing LGBT rights in his convention speech. But he is also close to religious conservative leaders.
And just about now, Trump needs a way to reconstitute the meaning of his presidency.