I hear lots of liberal complaints about conservative “obstructionism,” and understandably so.
So here’s my question for the liberals: If your side controlled one or both houses of Congress, but the Republicans held the presidency, what would you do?
If the Republican president proposed the deportation of 1 million illegal immigrants a year, would you propose reducing it to “just 500,000 deportations a year instead,” to not seem “obstructionist?” Or would you choose the “obstructionist” route and oppose the proposal in its entirety?
If the Republican president proposed huge tax cuts for the rich, would you propose reducing it to “smaller tax cuts for the rich instead,” to not seem “obstructionist?” Or would you choose the “obstructionist” route and oppose the proposal in its entirety?
If the Republican president proposed huge spending cuts for welfare, education and the environment, would you propose reducing it to “smaller spending cuts for welfare, education and the environment instead,” to not seem “obstructionist?” Or would you choose the “obstructionist” route and oppose the proposal in its entirety?
If the Republican president proposed an outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, would you propose reducing it to “a partial repeal of the ACA instead,” to not seem “obstructionist?” Or would you choose the “obstructionist” route and oppose the proposal in its entirety?
My point: Many liberals complain about conservative “obstructionism,” but if faced with a conservative presidential agenda that they found loathsome or unacceptable, they’d oppose compromise, too. Why? Because they would see compromise as simply "agreeing to allow bad things to happen."
Perhaps you could try posting situations that actually parallel what the Republicans have been doing.
Say…
Liberals, if a Republican president proposed a health care reform package based on ideas from liberal think tanks, would you vote for it 'cause, hey it’s your party’s program, or would you vote against it in lock step to try to deny the president any sort of victory?
Liberals, if there was a Republican president, would you shut down the government even though you had no idea what your goal in doing so was?
Liberals, if there was a Republican president, would you eff around with the country’s credit ratings in a fit of pique?
There are different ways to oppose something. Voting no on any mass deportation instead of compromising can be termed “obstruction.” Refusing to even permit a vote is another level. And refusing to appoint any executive officials until such proposals are withdrawn is yet another level.
There are also different reasons to oppose something. If you oppose mass deportation solely because it would be a political win for the President, then voting “no” is obstruction.
I think much of the commentary about GOP obstruction argues that it falls into one of those two categories–i.e., obstruction beyond just voting no, and obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
FWIW your poll doesn’t even begin to list alternatives, so I didn’t vote.
However, consider this scenario -
I am thirsty for a soda, I go to the store and see a shelf with coke and pepsi available. I choose one.
Vs.
I am thirsty for a soda, however I can’t get a soda because coke has decided to burn down all of the stores where pepsi is being sold, and has come to my house and slashed the tires on my car so I can’t drive to a farther location that might have pepsi available.
Just kidding!
Really, the alternative that seems to escape modern parties is to present a realistic attractive viable alternative. And to use political trading to entice others to vote along with.
Instead they choose to blow the whole damn thing up.
I’m a Liberal, therefore I must believe that the government should provide everything the people need. I need a car so that I can work. Since having transportation is a necessity, I should get one free. Conservatives say, ‘You can’t have a free car! We’ll sell you one at the MSRP.’ I reply that I can’t afford a car at that price. The opposition tells me I should have studied something different in school 30 years ago. I figure out what kind of car I need. The other side has one. It’s not a new Porsche (FWIW, I prefer Porsches to really exotic cars), but it’s not a rusted-out '82 Buick either. I’m told the price. I counter with another offer. The offer is declined, and a counter-counter offer is made. I re-counter. Eventually we reach a point where I’m paying more than I really want to to get the car, and the opposition is accepting less than they feel they should get. Neither side is super-happy about the deal, but I can now get to my job and the other side has made a profit.
It’s called ‘compromise’. Democrats made a lot of concessions to Republicans a couple/few years ago. Republicans refused to compromise. Even when they were offered more than they’d asked for, they voted ‘No.’ This is blatant obstructionism.
Were I in Congress, I would try to do what’s best for the country. If this means that I can only get part of what I want, then at least I’ve achieved part of my goal. As Confucius supposedly said, ‘Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.’ Or: ‘Perfect is the enemy of good.’ I believe in progress. Even just a little progress is still progress.
As for the scenario presented, it lacks subtlety. I would not do anything for appearances. I would oppose things that I think are bad for the people and the country, and fight for things that are good.
There are options besides outright capitulation and obstructionism, and opposing an agenda is not the same as “appear[ing] fully obstructionist.” The poll is patently silly.
People aren’t accusing the Republicans of merely disagreeing with or working against the President. They’re accusing the Republicans of shutting down the government, threatening to default, lowering the government’s credit rating, making filibusters commonplace in the Senate, and so on. They’re not complaining that the Republicans are trying to steer the ship to a different place than the President wants; they’re complaining that the Republicans are drilling a hole in the bottom of the boat and intend to keep drilling until they get their way.
(Disclaimer: I’m not a liberal, but liberals also know the difference between opposition and obstructionism.)
Didn’t vote as the choices were not realistic in my opinion. Bush The Lesser had a Democratic Congress to work with, and the Democrats worked with him. They didn’t shut the government down, didn’t hold the debt ceiling hostage, and didn’t leave judgeships and ambassadorships open just because they didn’t hold the White House.
There’s a difference between opposing things in conflict with your core beliefs and opposing everything a president wants to do simply because you want to see him fail, even at the expense of your nation.
Liberals, if there was a Republican president, would you filibuster every single appointment, especially judgeships since you want the benches vacant for the next Democratic President?
Liberals, if there was a Republican president, would you use every foreign-policy setback as an excuse to embarass the President?
… And OP, the experiment has already been tried.
When GWB or RWR were President, the Democrats rolled over like pussy-cats.
I think this is the best answer- ultimately, the system’s supposed to be the two parties coming to compromises, and doing the best thing/least awful thing for everyone involved. Ultimately it should be this sort of speaking softly, with obstructionism as the big stick if the compromise can’t be reached.
Problem is, that the GOP seems to just be coming to the party and laying about with the stick, without actually saying a damn thing.
As others have said, the Republicans are not limiting their obstructionism to programs they disagree with. They’re opposing programs that they supported when they had a majority simply because they don’t want the Democrats to enact those programs. It’s less not “agreeing to allow bad things to happen” and more “refusing to allow good things to happen”.
Implicit in the word obstructionism is that there is no principled reason to oppose a given thing. Obstructionism generally is understood as saying no just for the sake of saying no.
Principled disagreements are fine in my book, especially when it leads to substantive negotiation (rather than just splitting the baby as you have suggested).
Please note that I am not being an obstructionist in rejecting the silly ideas in your OP, I’m actually being constructive in thoroughly dismissing them and offering better ideas in return.
The answer should, of course, always be to do the best for the country regardless of who is going to get credit for it, assuming we have a sane opposition. The problem with the GOP is that everything is run through the political filter of helping or hurting them, with benefits to the country a distant afterthought. As a Democrat facing sane opposition, I wouldn’t care if the Republican president co-opted a Democratic plan and made it his own as long as the bill was put into law. The GOP right now is crazy, they are a hammer that thinks every problem is a nail. By being so reflexively anti-Obama, they obstruct a lot of laws they themselves were in favor of like health care, and shoot themselves in the foot. The only problem with that is they are not shooting themselves in the foot fast enough and losing voters fast enough to not win any seats at all, they still have some power unfortunately
It’s been mentioned many times in this thread, but how is it a given that the current group of Republican congress folks previously supported the current iteration of the ACA prior to Obama, and now oppose it? In other words, how is the ACA considered a Republican idea?
The idea that there must be compromise, or that opposing something is okay but obstructing something is not, is silly. Sometimes compromise is a good thing, and other times it’s not. It should not be taken as a given that compromise is always a net positive.
It’s possible to reject short term benefit for long term gain. If the current crop of GOP folks believe they will benefit longer term by rejecting things that may in the short term be beneficial, that doesn’t fit the criteria of saying no for the sake of saying no, but it would appear the same unless you understood the value judgments being made to come to that decision.
Its a Republican idea because the plan was drafted by Republicans and vehemently supported by Republicans back in the halcyon days where the GOP had health care reform aspirations rather than simply blocking everything. Of course the reason they did so was political, they wanted an alternative to Hillary’s reform plan, but even having a plan seems a radical idea from the current GOP which has no plan at all. In fact, it was such a Republican plan that their 2012 nominee actually implemented it and defended it, before it became politically dangerous to do so
Compromise is a good thing with two sane, opposing sides because moderation, by definition, reflects the plurality if not the majority of views. Obstruction on the part of an extreme side only serves that side’s interests. That’s why generally compromise is good. The part about sane opposing sides is meant to exclude instances where one side is so far out of the mainstream that they are a tiny, irrational population, sorta like how the GOP and the TP are now
If you want to say that its good thing are obstructing because its politically beneficial, and not because its good for the country, just say so
I am aware that Romney implemented a similar plan in Massachusetts as governor, but that’s about the extent I am aware this is a Republican plan. I’m honestly ignorant on this bit of history - is there a description somewhere I can read that supports the idea that the ACA is actually a Republican idea?
You seem to be implying that those unwilling to compromise are insane. Is that your intent? You say ‘generally compromise is good’. This means you recognize where it is not good. Who determines when these situations arise? Is it back to you get to decide and if the other person doesn’t agree then they are insane?
There can be overlap there. Unless you think one side has a monopoly on acting based on what’s good for the country. It’s a rather arrogant position to take, but one that wouldn’t be surprising. Is that your position?
