The Great Orange Satan Speaks
I know this pains the Broderites to death, but there are two parties because people disagree on stuff. I know that’s horrible and terrible and the worst thing to ever happen in politics, but if we had a system that would allow it, we’d have 10 parties! Or 20! In fact, our elections would be huge messes like the one that just happened in Israel!
So you have two parties. One of them has had carte blanche to try its solutions for the country the past eight years, and thanks to an opposition party that never realized it was an opposition party, the Republican president and his congressional allies were able to do whatever the hell they wanted. As a result, we face several problems of crisis proportions. We had an election were both parties offered their solutions to these crises. The Republicans offered up the same stale “ideas” that created the problems we’re in today — tax cuts, deregulation, subjugation of our rights, and a more aggressive foreign policy. The people unambiguously rejected those Republicans ideas.
Now Republicans are out in the wilderness, but rather than treat them like pariahs and the fringe regional losers that they are, Obama insists that he wants their input. It might be a laudable ideal, but Republicans have decided that the way back to power is to offer contrasts with the ruling Democrats. That’s smart! Where they screw up is that their ideas are so terrible that no one wants anything to do with them. But who knows, at some point they might stumble onto something good.
But they’re not going to get back to power being Democratic lite, and they’re not going to get credit for any of Obama’s successes, and all the love kisses from Broder are irrelevant to them as soon as they have to deal with a Club for Growth-backed primary challenger.
This is political survival 101. Democrats have always had the better ideas, yet they prolonged their time in the Congressional minority by thinking that playing the “bipartisanship” card was going to pay any benefits.
Voters will look for the differences in the parties, and then they’ll vote for the ideas they like better. For the GOP, good luck on the latter, but they’ll never even have a chance if they don’t create the former.
I understand what he’s saying here, but I still don’t agree. So, Congressional Republicans now think it’s their job to pass absolutely no laws? I realize bipartisanship got redefined as all Republicans + Joe Lieberman in the Bush years but this seems extreme. I mean, in my observation, people tend to vote for something rather than against something, so running as “we’re not Democrats” won’t be that successful and they won’t have anything to point to as to what they’re for.
At this moment in time, do Obama’s approval numbers reflect the fact that he tried to work with Republicans?
I say, yes. I also think we’re focusing too much on the term bipartisanship, which seems to mean different things to different people.
I want Obama to keep reaching across the aisle. He campaigned on this, and while, in the end, he may have to admit it’s a waste of time, now is not the time. Way too soon.
Let the Republicans play the opposition party – they’re good at it. Let them turn every bill into WWIII. Let them keep saying “no” in unison while offering no new ideas.
My guess is that if the Republicans continue on this path it won’t be long until there’s a poll saying, “The majority of Americans no longer favor Obama reaching across the aisle.”
That would be interesting. Republicans may not only demolish their party, but change our whole political process by killing off the idea of compromise and cooperation once and for all.
The real problem in this thinking is that it asks for parliamentary system behavior (we won, so we run everything, and all the other side gets to do is kvetch) in a non-parliamentary system. Each Congressman and Senator has to think about how to keep a seat, which is a different thing if you are a Congressman from NYC, vs a Congressman from upstate NY. (The GOP doesn’t get this fact anymore.) If you want Dems to simply ignore republicans (and nothing would make me happier, believe me) then what you really ought to be lobbying for is a change in the rules — no more 60 votes or other supermajority rules should apply under any circumstances. Without those rules, Dems can pretty much run the table. But as long as 60 votes are needed, a slightly different strategy — no matter how mad it makes the rest of us — needs to be in play.
Ron Brownstein has a smart article in the National Journal that captures Obama talking about the process of getting the Recovery package passed PLUS some thoughts on bipartianship. It is worth reading in its entirety, but this is a key bit:
Cooperation on the economic agenda, he suggested, may have been unusually difficult because it “touched on… one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans” — whether tax cuts or public spending can best stimulate growth. He predicted there may be greater opportunity for cooperation on issues such as the budget, entitlements and foreign policy. And if he keeps reaching out, he speculated, Republicans may face “some countervailing pressures” from the public “to work in a more constructive way.” White House aides suggest that regardless of how congressional Republicans react on upcoming issues, Obama will pursue alliances with Republican governors and Republican-leaning business groups and leaders.
Great article, Cassandra. And while Obama forms alliances with governors, etc. Republicans will begin to pare down their own base. Crist, Specter, etc. are now under attack. The ultimate republican on republican crime. They are actively reducing their own numbers.
Great point, Pandora. Republicans are purging their own members in order to get a “purer” caucus.