Can Obama and Republicans find a way to work together?

THE day after a Republican landslide tipped the balance of power in the United States Congress, leaders from the Grand Old Party (GOP) and Democratic Party sought to move away from the bitter partisanship that has so defined the Washington climate of the past two years.

If there's one thing President Barack Obama and presumptive Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell could agree on after Tuesday's mid-term elections, it is that American voters are fed up with gridlock.

The stalemate in Washington has been a source of concern as well for many around the world in recent years. They see a US president often distracted from foreign policy imperatives by domestic politics. The question now is thus: Can a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president work together?

While there are many compelling reasons for both sides to finally learn to compromise, there is no shortage of evidence to fuel scepticism of some sort of new dawn on Capitol Hill.

The President, for instance, started the day by congratulating the Republicans and pledging to reach across the aisle. But he also made it clear that this was not a change triggered by the electoral rout his party faced. He said he had always been ready to work with the other side.

Then he announced plans to defend against possible Republican volleys against Obamacare - "Repeal of the law, I won't sign," he said.

On pre-emptive executive action on immigration before the new Congress is sworn in next year, he said: "Before the end of the year, we're going to take whatever lawful actions that I can take."

On the part of Republicans, Mr McConnell wasted no time in declaring their intention to go after the President's landmark health-care Act, starting with a full repeal - or if that fails, moving on to its slow dismantling.

Taken together, what you have is a Democratic president vowing to continue to pursue unilateral action on an issue of great annoyance to the Republicans, and a Republican Party vowing to use its increased legislative power to attack the centrepiece of the President's legacy.

Hardly an auspicious start to what is supposed to be a new era of reconciliation in Washington.

And even if one were to try to give both sides the benefit of the doubt - dismissing the initial reactions as a hangover from previous battles - obstacles remain to make it tough for even well-meaning leaders to get things done.

The first is a longstanding structural problem - there are just no more political moderates.

Political commentators today speak fondly of a time when there was significant variation within both parties. The Democratic Party used to control large swathes of the conservative South and it was not uncommon to have Republican representatives in what is deemed the liberal north-east region of the US. As the parties grew apart, the number of moderate lawmakers also started to dwindle. It became harder and harder to find a Democratic governor in a deeply conservative state or vice-versa.

Tuesday's mid-term elections found even more such politicians booted out of office. Democratic politicians in deeply red states like Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia were all soundly beaten and Senator Mary Landrieu is hanging on for her political life in Louisiana.

The Republican wave that swept the Senate featured no notable victory in a deeply Democratic state. The GOP won in swing states like Colorado and Iowa but the sweep came on the back of regaining seats in Republican states.

What this means is that party leaders are faced with a Congress that has partisanship in its DNA. In the new Congress, there will be fewer issues where both sides can find common ground.

A second, perhaps more serious, problem is the long shadow cast by the 2016 presidential and Senate elections. With close to half of the 50 or so Republican senators up for re-election in 2016, those running in either Democratic or swing states may be wary of taking up any difficult votes.

Then there is the GOP's own internal battle with fringe elements like the Tea Party which believe that a electoral wave should result in less compromise, not more.

When bookmakers first started tipping a Republican sweep weeks ago, Mr McConnell announced a modest list of what he thought was a pragmatic legislative agenda to bring before the Senate. This included a repeal of an unpopular tax on medical devices, a Bill to promote job retraining and fast- track trade promotion authority for the President - little passable pieces of legislation to start the year by showing that a Republican Congress can get things done.

The list was instantly criticised by Tea Party activists, who accused Mr McConnell of thinking too small. The prevailing sentiment on the far right was: "What's the point of winning a majority if we aren't going to use it to go after the big fish?"

It was thus of little surprise that by the time Mr McConnell was facing reporters the day after the elections, he started talking about killing Obamacare.

To be fair, the party has had some success in limiting the influence of the Tea Party during this election cycle. The leadership organised well and channelled funds to back mainstream candidates in primaries against Tea Party-backed candidates. In doing so, it avoided the embarrassment of 2012 when a raft of Republican candidates with extreme views made it to the ballot.

Still, the biggest Tea Party-related headache for Mr McConnell comes in the form of Mr Ted Cruz. The Texas senator, along with the likes of senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, all harbour aspirations for a White House run in 2016. This will make them unlikely to cooperate with Mr McConnell as they seek to distinguish themselves politically.

While Mr Cruz was not up for election on Tuesday, he still managed to make the headlines - effectively declaring war on both Mr Obama and Mr McConnell. Asked multiple times by different news outlets, he refused to voice support for Mr McConnell's bid to become Senate majority leader, prompting rumours that he himself was eyeing the post.

He also laid out a legislative agenda far more confrontational than that put forward by Mr McConnell. Speaking to right-leaning Fox News moments after the elections had been called in favour of the Republicans, he said the party's two top issues should be stopping Obamacare and "stopping Obama amnesty".

Despite all the obstacles, there is still a possibility that some achievements can be eked out from a divided government in the next two years.

The best argument for it is that it is in the best interests of both sides to get something done. Electorally, the GOP needs to show that it can use its increased power responsibly or Republicans may well find themselves on the wrong side of Congress and the White House again, come 2016.

For Mr Obama, the priority in his final two years must be to rebuild a legacy that has been severely damaged in his second term. Former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were able to coax significant legislative achievements out of a Congress completely controlled by opponents. Mr Obama needs to find a way to do the same.

Both sides seem to know what needs to be done and where the overlapping issues are. The question is whether they can stop squabbling long enough to get something done.

jeremyau@sph.com.sg