# For the minority party, what's the alternative to "obstructionism?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 9, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971 "2014-09-09T16:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/21 "2014-09-11T21:37:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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? For starters, you do know the idea of the individual mandate came from the [Heritage Foundation](http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/), right? That’s a Forbes article, presumably something a conservative trusts, and the writer lays out the history of health care reform. The only thing conservatives can take away from that is that people have the right to change their mind, and its fine that they do, but don’t lie and say it was never a GOP plan or it wasn’t conservative. It was, they wanted the idea, most were on board with it, and when political fortunes changed, it was damaging to the conservative rhetoric and they abandoned the position. That’s why its harmful and that’s why you see a lot of conservatives distancing themselves from it What I’d like to see, quite frankly, is conservatives try to take credit for it. Say that they weren’t able to implement it because it wasn’t on their radar to help the poor, but now that Obama has given them cover, they wanted to help the poor all along! Of course that will never happen, but one can dream > [@Bone](#): > > 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? I’m blatantly coming out and saying that these particular group of people who don’t compromise are insane. As for who determines when’s a good time to compromise, answer me this: how do you know the Democrats are not 100% correct on their viewpoints on compromise and legislation? When you can answer that, you will know why I hold my beliefs > [@Bone](#): > > 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? Yes. The Democrats do things generally for the good of the country and to serve their constituents, desires that overlap. The GOP serves themselves and cares not for constituents, only that they get in power. Therefore, they will hurt their voters if they think they can get away with it and keep power, and the Democrats will not, as a general rule. Its not arrogant to point out the truth ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/22 "2014-09-12T03:03:47Z")
> [@orangeapples](#): > > Compromise, bringing you semi-effective governance since Seventeen Something\*. > > \*Disregarding all semi-effective governance that came before ours since shortly after Seventeen Something. lol @ partisans ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/23 "2014-09-12T05:06:39Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m blatantly coming out and saying that these particular group of people who don’t compromise are insane. As for who determines when’s a good time to compromise, answer me this: how do you know the Democrats are not 100% correct on their viewpoints on compromise and legislation? When you can answer that, you will know why I hold my beliefs I don’t believe any group would be 100% correct in general. You think Republicans should compromise. They don’t. Therefore, you conclude they are insane. What an odd position to take. I suppose I could conclude that anyone who disagrees with me is insane but that would be more telling about myself than the other person. > [@](#): > > Yes. The Democrats do things generally for the good of the country and to serve their constituents, desires that overlap. The GOP serves themselves and cares not for constituents, only that they get in power. Therefore, they will hurt their voters if they think they can get away with it and keep power, and the Democrats will not, as a general rule. Its not arrogant to point out the truth So you do believe that Democrats have a monopoly on doing what’s good for the country. Well, that’s informative. \*I’ll read the linked article in the next few days. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/24 "2014-09-12T14:20:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t believe any group would be 100% correct in general. You think Republicans should compromise. They don’t. Therefore, you conclude they are insane. What an odd position to take. I suppose I could conclude that anyone who disagrees with me is insane but that would be more telling about myself than the other person. See [_It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,_](http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465074731/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403989019&sr=1-1&keywords=it%27s+even+worse+than+it+looks) by think-tankers [Thomas E. Mann](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Mann) and [Norman J. Ornstein](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_J._Ornstein). Mann is with the nonpartisan [Brookings Institution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution), Ornstein is with the conservative [Heritage Foundation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation), and both agree that stubborn ideological Pubs are almost entirely to blame for the present political gridlock in America, and for the debt-ceiling crisis and government shutdown in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/25 "2014-09-12T16:35:18Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The Democrats do things generally for the good of the country and to serve their constituents, desires that overlap. If anyone said, “The Republicans do things generally for the good of the country and to serve their constituents, desires that overlap,” you’d call it a subjective, biased statement. Which is what yours is. ---
**Author:** ![orangeapples](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@orangeapples](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orangeapples)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/26 "2014-09-12T17:06:22Z")
> [@orangeapples](#): > > Compromise, bringing you semi-effective governance since Seventeen Something\*. > > \*Disregarding all semi-effective governance that came before ours since shortly after Seventeen Something. > [@Stringbean](#): > > lol @ partisans I don’t get it, Big Dan. Are you suggesting that compromise is a partisan ploy of some kind? Are you suggesting that I am a partisan for calling for compromise? Or perhaps you mean that extreme partisanship is why there can be no compromise, and that’s a real chuckle. Your intent was less than clear. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/27 "2014-09-12T18:14:26Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If anyone said, “The Republicans do things generally for the good of the country and to serve their constituents, desires that overlap,” you’d call it a subjective, biased statement. > > Which is what yours is. Any disinterested foreigner who studied the question would agree with **YogSothoth,** not with you. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/28 "2014-09-12T18:35:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Any disinterested foreigner who studied the question would agree with **YogSothoth,** not with you. And if they disagreed with YogSosoth they would be insane right? The logic is perfect! ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/29 "2014-09-12T20:19:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t believe any group would be 100% correct in general. You think Republicans should compromise. They don’t. Therefore, you conclude they are insane. What an odd position to take. I suppose I could conclude that anyone who disagrees with me is insane but that would be more telling about myself than the other person. Its not odd if facts back them up. Your mistake is thinking everything that has a subjective component cannot be objectively measured in some way. “I like strawberry ice cream more than chocolate, therefore strawberry is better” is a subjective belief, but if we measured, for example, the relative healthiness of strawberry vs. chocolate ice cream and one is healthier, then you can make an objective statement on something generally given to subjective politics. “Obstruction is bad” is subjective, but creating a list of criteria to measure obstruction and proving that the GOP engages in it much more and more severely than Democrats is not necessarily subjective. If you disagree with my list of criteria, feel free to submit your own. However, I’ve noticed in this thread and the one in GD that the conservatives on the board seem to have no interest in defining what’s obstruction, nor even trying to prove Democrats engage in it more than Republicans, and try to avoid the subject at all costs by attacking the debate in the first place. Again, I invite conservatives to just come out and admit that what the GOP is doing is obstruction and its good. You guys get close to admitting one or the other, but not both > [@Velocity](#): > > If anyone said, “The Republicans do things generally for the good of the country and to serve their constituents, desires that overlap,” you’d call it a subjective, biased statement. > > Which is what yours is. Its only biased if its not true. Given a valid list of criteria for what is good for the country and what is not, one can very easily determine which major party is living up to that ideal. The problem is that people like to throw up their hands and say its impossible, and pretend that both sides are equal, when in fact it is so clearly not the case > [@Bone](#): > > And if they disagreed with YogSosoth they would be insane right? The logic is perfect! Answer this question: Would these hypothetical people be insane because they disagreed with me, or because they disagreed with facts? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/30 "2014-09-12T21:11:36Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Its not odd if facts back them up. Your mistake is thinking everything that has a subjective component cannot be objectively measured in some way. “I like strawberry ice cream more than chocolate, therefore strawberry is better” is a subjective belief, but if we measured, for example, the relative healthiness of strawberry vs. chocolate ice cream and one is healthier, then you can make an objective statement on something generally given to subjective politics. I think you’re making the assertion that competing goals in politics can somehow be measured in an objectively good or bad. That’s silly. > [@](#): > > “Obstruction is bad” is subjective, but creating a list of criteria to measure obstruction and proving that the GOP engages in it much more and more severely than Democrats is not necessarily subjective. If you disagree with my list of criteria, feel free to submit your own. However, I’ve noticed in this thread and the one in GD that the conservatives on the board seem to have no interest in defining what’s obstruction, nor even trying to prove Democrats engage in it more than Republicans, and try to avoid the subject at all costs by attacking the debate in the first place. Again, I invite conservatives to just come out and admit that what the GOP is doing is obstruction and its good. You guys get close to admitting one or the other, but not both Who says obstruction is bad? Sometimes it can be good, no? If I want government to do as little as possible, then obstruction would be good. Any time the value of blocking the overall process exceeds the value of any single item, then obstruction would be a net positive. That’s the criteria I would use. Would you admit that obstruction could be a net positive? If yes, then it’s just a matter of arguing when that is true. If no, then why won’t you compromise? > [@](#): > > Answer this question: Would these hypothetical people be insane because they disagreed with me, or because they disagreed with facts? I don’t think anyone is insane merely for disagreeing - that’s you. Look, you believe that Democrats have a monopoly on acting in the best interest of the country, and that Republicans don’t care about their constituents. I’m sure you think that’s a reasonable position to take, but it’s not. That position is juvenile and trite. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/31 "2014-09-12T22:26:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think you’re making the assertion that competing goals in politics can somehow be measured in an objectively good or bad. That’s silly. Its only silly if one refuses to participate and pretends that “both sides do it”. If the Democrats come up with a “Turn every American into an indestructiblel Superman” law and the GOP came up with a “Drain the blood of every American to feed Martian vampires law”, you’d be hard pressed to hand wave away the belief that one of them is a bad law. There is nothing inherently biased about a list of criteria used to measure some factor. Quibble with what’s on the list if you want, but if the methodology is sound and it measures what its supposed to measure, then I’ll use that as proof > [@Bone](#): > > Who says obstruction is bad? Sometimes it can be good, no? If I want government to do as little as possible, then obstruction would be good. Any time the value of blocking the overall process exceeds the value of any single item, then obstruction would be a net positive. That’s the criteria I would use. Would you admit that obstruction could be a net positive? If yes, then it’s just a matter of arguing when that is true. If no, then why won’t you compromise? What value do you hope to increase? Why don’t you define it and we’ll see who brings about a net positive? I’ll answer your questions when you stick to the subject of the topic and stop running from it > [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think anyone is insane merely for disagreeing - that’s you. Look, you believe that Democrats have a monopoly on acting in the best interest of the country, and that Republicans don’t care about their constituents. I’m sure you think that’s a reasonable position to take, but it’s not. That position is juvenile and trite. Juvenile and trite are subjective. Acting in the best interest of the constituents is less so, in my opinion, and I believe enough empirical evidence has been shown in this and the other topic in GD to prove that. And reasonableness can be quantified by seeing just which beliefs are fact based and which are gut based. You really want to play that game? If I believed murders were good and all murdered people become powerful ghosts with vast cosmic powers, are you prepared to call my beliefs just as valid as yours, which I presume are “murders are bad”? Tell me I’m wrong and that my beliefs are as valid as yours ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/32 "2014-09-12T22:37:58Z")
Obstructionism is a lose-lose proposition. Sure, you make the President look bad, but you end up looking pretty bad yourself. There is compromise light, simple difference splitting or REAL compromise, which is taking something you really don’t want in order to get something you really do. Real compromises are almost ALWAYS compromises of principle. People who engage is this kind of behavior are often called, gasp, statesmen. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/33 "2014-09-12T23:06:37Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What value do you hope to increase? Why don’t you define it and we’ll see who brings about a net positive? I’ll answer your questions when you stick to the subject of the topic and stop running from it I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m having trouble parsing what you’re trying to say. What value? Let’s see…I want the federal government to do as little as possible, as a goal unto itself. Anything that contributes to that in the long run is a net positive. Obviously you disagree - you would like the federal government to do the same amount, or more. I don’t think you’re insane for taking that position. So if you propose to increase spending by $100, and I say…no. You say, how about $50? I say no. You would question why I’m not compromising, right? I don’t have to support any increase, so I won’t. Shit may blow up, but sure as shit I’m not supporting increasing spending. Now answer my question. > [@](#): > > Juvenile and trite are subjective. Acting in the best interest of the constituents is less so, in my opinion, and I believe enough empirical evidence has been shown in this and the other topic in GD to prove that. It’s amusing you think the words ‘juvenile’ and ‘trite’ are subjective, and immediately thereafter you conclude that 'acting in the best interest of the constituents is less so. That’s pretty subjective too. Except we have a great way to measure whether constituents believe their best interests are being acted upon - an election. As long as these folks get elected, that’s empirical evidence that they are acting in the best interest of their constituents. It’s not a slam dunk, but it’s more objective than any other method available. > [@](#): > > And reasonableness can be quantified by seeing just which beliefs are fact based and which are gut based. You really want to play that game? If I believed murders were good and all murdered people become powerful ghosts with vast cosmic powers, are you prepared to call my beliefs just as valid as yours, which I presume are “murders are bad”? Tell me I’m wrong and that my beliefs are as valid as yours er…wut? What are you going on about? Please rephrase for clarity. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/34 "2014-09-14T02:43:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See [_It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,_](http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465074731/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403989019&sr=1-1&keywords=it%27s+even+worse+than+it+looks) by think-tankers [Thomas E. Mann](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Mann) and [Norman J. Ornstein](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_J._Ornstein). Mann is with the nonpartisan [Brookings Institution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution), Ornstein is with the conservative [Heritage Foundation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation), and both agree that stubborn ideological Pubs are almost entirely to blame for the present political gridlock in America, and for the debt-ceiling crisis and government shutdown in particular. Interesting that the pro-GOP Dopers don’t address this. Perhaps they think Heritage Foundation has now joined the ranks of the Kenyanists who want to take away their guns, pamper ethnic voters, and vaccinate their children on the way to the death camps. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/35 "2014-09-14T03:47:19Z")
If the Pubs are going to falsely use _tu quoque_ excuses, the we Dens might as well just go ahead and _quoque_ – obstruct – if and when we find ourselves grappling with a Pub presidency. Kind of like Ashley Judd in _Double Jeopardy_. We didn’t do what you’re accusing us of, but if you’re gonna give us crap for it, heck, we might as well just do it. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/36 "2014-09-14T16:22:31Z")
> [@orangeapples](#): > > I don’t get it, Big Dan. > > Are you suggesting that compromise is a partisan ploy of some kind? Are you suggesting that I am a partisan for calling for compromise? **Or perhaps you mean that extreme partisanship is why there can be no compromise, and that’s a real chuckle.** > > Your intent was less than clear. As was yours. I too am calling for compromise, as it is the foundation for our democratic system, and has served us well despite the chronic bitching of the one-siders. Are we in accord? ---
**Author:** ![orangeapples](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@orangeapples](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orangeapples)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/37 "2014-09-15T06:14:23Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > As was yours. > > I too am calling for compromise, as it is the foundation for our democratic system, and has served us well despite the chronic bitching of the one-siders. > > Are we in accord? Yep, we are in accord. That’s actually what I was attempting to say, that compromise is the obvious answer as opposed to obstruction, but I went for flippancy and I suppose the substance suffered. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/38 "2014-09-15T16:07:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bone** : > > Who says obstruction is bad? Sometimes it can be good, no? If I want government to do as little as possible, then obstruction would be good. > [@](#): > > What value? Let’s see…I want the federal government to do as little as possible, as a goal unto itself. These two goals are fundamentally at odds. The more obstructed the federal government is, the more intrusive Big Government (i.e., the state and local governments) will become. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/39 "2014-09-15T16:23:32Z")
Yeah, come on. The less you’re governed, the more you’re bullied. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/40 "2014-09-15T16:51:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > What value? Let’s see…I want the federal government to do as little as possible, as a goal unto itself. Anything that contributes to that in the long run is a net positive. Obviously you disagree - you would like the federal government to do the same amount, or more. I don’t think you’re insane for taking that position. So if you propose to increase spending by $100, and I say…no. You say, how about $50? I say no. You would question why I’m not compromising, right? I don’t have to support any increase, so I won’t. Shit may blow up, but sure as shit I’m not supporting increasing spending. This is like the prisoner’s dilemma but instead of prison time, your side is actively increasing the acrimony in politics until some time where this crap is normal on both sides. Think about whether you feel that’s worth it. Even though I’m an extreme liberal and think conservatives are wrong basically all the time, I do not think the overall coarsening of politics serves my side or the country. What I think is that conservatives think they will get short term goals accomplished then maybe sometime in the future they will walk back the obstruction. What they are too stupid to realize in Congress is that liberals will not just let them do that and so good luck trying to pass something when the GOP is in charge As to your question, I believe that obstruction is an overall negative, but can have positive uses. That’s why we have filibusters and procedures to block extreme bills or nominees for a position, because there are exceptions to the rule of decorum. Of course I think that there are little that is liberally extreme and a lot that is conservatively extreme, but I’m willing to let some things go in the past. However, with the likes of the Tea Baggers running the show, and horrifying religious fanatics who refuse to accept science in the leadership positions of the GOP, the entire GOP has become extreme. Given that premise, I do not think its bad if liberals obstruct conservatives, but I do think its bad if conservatives do the same. Now before you reply “both sides do it”, consider this: If conservatives really are extreme now and liberals are not, then objectively, we can say that obstruction of GOP policies is a net positive because its doing exactly what its supposed to be doing, which is blocking the most extreme bills and nominees. You are really going to fight the reflexive urge to blame both sides if you are honest. I say “if” because you might not give a damn about honesty and just want your side to win all the time for anything. If so, I expect a “both sides do it” or “liberals are just as bad as conservatives”. But if you are honest, you will see that the real debate isn’t about obstruction, its about extremism in the GOP. Does it exist? Is it running the show? If the answer is yes, the liberals are doing nothing wrong by blocking GOP bills and the GOP is completely wrong by being obstructionist > [@Bone](#): > > It’s amusing you think the words ‘juvenile’ and ‘trite’ are subjective, and immediately thereafter you conclude that 'acting in the best interest of the constituents is less so. That’s pretty subjective too. The first two words are more insults than anything. “Best interests” is not. You can define actual interests like health, finances, longevity, etc. How would you measure the triteness of something? > [@Bone](#): > > Except we have a great way to measure whether constituents believe their best interests are being acted upon - an election. You used the keyword “believe”. Beliefs can be wrong. It doesn’t matter how much Ken Hamm wants to believe Creationism is true, it will always be false. Likewise, it doesn’t matter what the GOP does to fool its voters into thinking they should vote for them, their belief can be mistaken. Sure, no one can make the decisions for the voters, its ultimately up to them. But we can influence them by using facts instead of lies. And Democrats are overwhelmingly the party of facts and not wishful thinking [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971.md?page=3)