Obama's 'Common Ground': Slogan or Substance?

While the Obama administration seeks without much sloganeering success to brand itself as the "New Foundation," another often-uttered two-word phrase more tellingly defines the early months of this presidency.

No matter how thornily divisive a domestic or international issue might be, Barack Obama adopts the persona of an explorer in search of today's political terra incognita: "common ground."

In discussing abortion at Notre Dame's commencement in May, he used the phrase three times. During his June speech in Cairo about the U.S. and the Muslim world, he repeated it twice. In other prepared statements and extemporaneous news conferences, "common ground" is akin to the promised land, the objective he's trying to "seek," to "find," to "achieve" or to "build," according to a review of White House transcripts.

The phrase even pops up as a goal for executive and legislative cooperation. During St. Patrick's Day remarks at the Capitol, Obama recalled the relationship between House Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald Reagan – "two men of Irish stock who loved a good scrap, but who also knew how to work together to find common ground."

By taking this rhetorical refrain and transforming it into a theme with implications for governing, Obama acknowledges the polarities intrinsic to most political and social issues. He positions himself as a figure willing to locate the place of consensus between rival viewpoints that allows for action to ameliorate, if not remedy, a problem.

It's too soon to tell whether a metaphor for a place where compromise could occur will ultimately lead to genuine give-and-take. Clearly, though, the strategy behind this approach signals the intention to conduct the nation's business differently from what's happened since the 1990s. Rather than focusing on sharply edged wedge issues (such as abortion) to create greater differentiation and division, the appeal to "common ground" attempts to bridge the growing partisan gulf.

Alluring as this objective might be, roadblocks and barriers litter every inch of the way. In recent years, party loyalty in congressional voting has risen dramatically and now approaches 90 percent for both Democrats and Republicans, as opposed to 60 to 65 percent in the 1970s. At the same time, senators and representatives have become more ideologically homogenous and more inclined to be identifiably on the left or right rather than at a mid-point of agreement.

As polarization rooted itself more deeply in Washington, explicitly political media (cable news, radio talk programs, blogs and other outlets) mushroomed and stole viewers, listeners and readers from mainstream sources.

One consequence of this new politically charged media environment is the decline in a mutually shared pool of information that existed before the cable, satellite and Internet explosion. "Common ground" is harder to locate when polar-opposite opinions are the chief currency in dealing with a complicated or controversial subject.

Interestingly, Cass R. Sunstein, nominated to be director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, published a book in April, "Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide." Throughout the political and cultural study, the Harvard law professor and longtime Obama friend explains why "group polarization" is becoming more pronounced in contemporary America and what phenomena contribute to it.

Sunstein calls today's media fragmentation "cyberbalkanization," featuring countless niches at the expense of more broadly cast messages. "The Internet is making it possible for people to design a kind of Daily Me – their personal communications packages, which include only the topics and opinions that they like and exclude troublesome issues and disfavored voices," he writes.

"With greater specialization, people are increasingly able to avoid general-interest newspapers and magazines and to make choices that reflect their own predispositions. Many people appear to be hearing more and louder versions of their own views, thus reducing the benefits that come from exposure to competing views and unnoticed problems."

Obama acknowledged the more heat-than-light approach across the new media in a recent interview with NBC's Brian Williams. The president likened the "cable chatter" of political debates to professional wrestling – "Everybody's got their role to play."

More subtly but significantly, the increasing emphasis on the "multicultural" character of America across education (primary through collegiate) plays a role in trying to arrive at anywhere near the "common ground."

Recognizing the country's racial and ethnic variety is indisputably valuable. Yet there's always the danger – vigorously argued by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in "The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society" – of obscuring a more encompassing national outlook in the process. As with communications, it's really a matter of degree and the extent to which a particular concern supersedes the more general or common one.

Taking the political, media and educational situations together makes one wonder whether "common ground" is attainable when the concept of a common culture seems elusive or even anachronistic.

However, the presidency is the only governmental office Americans share in common, with the potential to unify a disparate people. Though it was short-lived, George W. Bush enjoyed broad, nation-binding support during the weeks after 9/11, particularly with his speech to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001.

By stressing the objective of "common ground," Obama could be looking beyond the Beltway to attract citizens out in the states who often are less ideological and partisan than members of Congress. Independents in particular tend to see themselves as moderate in outlook, occupants of the political space between the two entrenched party bases.

But prime questions loom: How long can anyone invoke "common ground" before presidential decisions start to create a more defined perception? Is it a short-term strategy to launch the administration or a more comprehensive, sustained approach to actually governing?

Whether "common ground" becomes the answer to creating the Obama administration's "New Foundation" will be decided in coming months. A sentence of Winston Churchill's might help frame a final judgment of the effort: "Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare."

_____________________________________________________________