I want to take a break from the euphoria of the inaugural weekend for a few thoughts on the new president’s use of rhetoric to enhance his power.

A key theme of the Obama campaign and of the soon-to-be-sworn-in president’s statements since election day has been the call to bring “Democrats, Republicans and Independents”, along with many other groups, together.  It is a fair bet that this call to reach beyond partisanship will find its way into his much anticipated inaugural address.

Many presidents of the past half century have sought a similar transcending of party divisions, usually meeting frustration.  Dwight Eisenhower called for it in his second inaugural, Richard Nixon (“to lower our voices would be a simple thing”) in his first.  George H.W. Bush tried to reach across the aisle in budget and national security matters.  George W. Bush made no secret of his desire coming to office to change the tone in Washington and has been candid in recent interviews about his disappointment that he didn’t succeed.  Each of these presidents were Republicans facing Democratic Congresses.  Now we have a Democratic president with large Democratic majorities in houses calling for post-partisan unity.  Mr. Obama would appear to hold all the cards and not need the Congressional GOP.  So is his call just so many empty words?  Maybe not.  The rhetoric of unity may in fact be part of a strategy to put the new president in firm charge of national affairs.

In the past two weeks, Mr. Obama and his aides have backed the unity pledge in a most unusual way.  They have let it be known that on their two biggest domestic priorities — the stimulus package and health care reform — they will not move until they have 70-80 votes in the Senate.  In other words, they will seek sufficient compromise to bring as many as half of Senate Republicans into reform fold.  Why?

It may seem a paradox, but the large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate present a potentially serious problem to the incoming president.  The temper of his Congressional party (as evinced this weekend by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for prosecution of Bush Administration officials) is leftist and hot headed, exactly how the president-elect appears to want NOT to govern.  Without a supermajority rule that he is prepared to stand behind, Mr. Obama could quickly become captive of the most extreme elements of his party in Congress.  It is fair to say this would be a political disaster.  It could easily produce a Republican Congress at the next midterm elections, similar to what happened to Bill Clinton following a sharp leftward tack on taxes, health care and other issues early in his first term.

With his rhetorical reach to Republicans, Mr. Obama has established before the American people a standard for his own conduct.  He has given himself an answer to those who will want him to govern through a faction.  And he has opened the way to stand between left and right in Washington, enhancing his own capacity to serve as the ultimate arbiter in national affairs.

Is this Machiavellian maneuver really what the new president intends?    Some will find the idea fantastic.  But my work with those who have played at the highest reaches of our political life makes me find it not fantastic but natural.  In truly skillful hands, rhetoric and power are in constant interplay.  The most astute political leaders know how to make each enhance the other — to the ultimate advancement of their goals, and the nation’s.