When President Obama reached a decision on a war plan for Afghanistan, he split the difference between pressures from the right and left with a combined surge and withdrawal plan.
Similarly, when Obama moved to extend a controversial bank bailout program, he appeased Republicans with a vow to pay down the deficit, while helping his own party with money to create jobs.
As a candidate, Obama criticized the Republican-backed use of military commissions to prosecute detainees, and campaigned on a promise to close Guantanamo Bay prison. Obama has since resumed the use of commissions while angering some conservatives with a plan to try 9/11 plotters in New York federal courts. He also delayed closing the prison.
Whether Obama’s style on major decisions reflects the prudent work of a deliberative leader or the cynical calculations of a shrewd politicians is a matter for debate. One thing that’s clear is his fondness for a split decision.
“I think it maybe doesn’t play very well in the press and among people demanding instant decisions, but on the other hand, he is far more deliberative than some of our other presidents have been,” said Chris Reardon, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire.
By striking a political compromise on Afghanistan, Obama angered both liberals who sought an end to the war and conservatives who want to stay and fight — but at least one poll showed the president picked up 10 percentage points in public approval for his handling of Afghanistan.
“I think people were selectively listening during the campaign and many people put into Obama what they wanted to see — and many Democrats did not want to see a continuation of the war,” Reardon said.
While Obama wrestled publicly for months over Afghanistan, the debate inside the White House over continuation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was more low-profile.
In that case, the struggle was not which way to go, but how to sell the idea of extending the unpopular, $700 billion program intended to bail out the financial sector.
Once again, Obama had it both ways, applying part of $200 billion in TARP offsets to job creation programs — addressing a major political concern for his party — while disarming some of his critics with a concurrent plan to pay down the federal deficit.
“I think you start out with the proposition that he is a politician and it’s part of the nature of politicians to try to make as many people happy or as few enemies as possible,” said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Obama’s final stance on Guantanamo was trickier — and more a function of his campaign ambitions running up against the realities of governance. Soon after taking office, it became clear to the president that closing the prison and trying detainees was more complex than it appeared.
“When you’re campaigning, you picture the world as you want it to be,” Hess said. “Then suddenly there’s a Supreme Court that may not agree with you, and Congress, which often has more facets that you expected.”
