# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/41 "2014-09-15T19:34:00Z")
Had it been an option, I would have voted for, _Go along with those parts of the Republican President’s agenda which I believed were in the national interest, regardless of who got the credit._ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/42 "2014-09-15T23:13:23Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > 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 > > 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? > > 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 And from your liberal viewpoint, I have no doubt you believe all this. It does not make it reality. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/43 "2014-09-15T23:26:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And from your liberal viewpoint, I have no doubt you believe all this. It does not make it reality. You’re wrong. Reality makes me liberal, not the other way around. Unlike conservatives who have come out proudly against science. Here’s something I accept: If science causes one of my beliefs to be proven wrong, then I will change my beliefs. How many conservatives look and science and try to change that instead of their beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/44 "2014-09-15T23:27:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And from your liberal viewpoint, I have no doubt you believe all this. It does not make it reality. Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/45 "2014-09-16T02:39:17Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’re wrong. Reality makes me liberal, not the other way around. Unlike conservatives who have come out proudly against science. > > Here’s something I accept: If science causes one of my beliefs to be proven wrong, then I will change my beliefs. How many conservatives look and science and try to change that instead of their beliefs? Way more than you think, that’s for sure. This notion that conservatives are anti-science is laughable. Sure there is a minority who choose to take a more literal interpretation of the bible, but even then, that doesn’t mean that they are against science. And most certainly against _all_ science. You’re taking a cartoon view of thing. And you should at least acknowledge that your perception is colored by your own beliefs and biases. As everyone’s is. That’s REALITY, right there, chum. Accept that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/46 "2014-09-16T02:42:13Z")
> [@74westy](#): > > Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Yup. That’s why I try to not make statements with such sweeping certitude. First, I follow no religion. Second, I’m more than happy to attach to any belief that I hold, “I may be wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/47 "2014-09-16T16:40:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Way more than you think, that’s for sure. This notion that conservatives are anti-science is laughable. Sure there is a minority who choose to take a more literal interpretation of the bible, **but even then, that doesn’t mean that they are against science.** And most certainly against _all_ science. You’re taking a cartoon view of thing. And you should at least acknowledge that your perception is colored by your own beliefs and biases. As everyone’s is. That’s REALITY, right there, chum. Accept that. I’m sorry, are you trying to kill me with laughter??? :D:D:D:D:D:D ---
**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 16, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/48 "2014-09-16T17:15:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > If conservatives really are extreme now and liberals are not “Extremism” is subjective. One person may think that a flat income tax rate for all is an extreme idea; another person may think it is perfectly reasonable. One person may think that single-payer health care is an extreme idea; another person may think it is perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, “extreme” is often a form of political name-calling meant to portray one’s opponent as unelectable and ones’ own self as mainstream. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/49 "2014-09-16T18:08:28Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > “Extremism” is subjective. One person may think that a flat income tax rate for all is an extreme idea; another person may think it is perfectly reasonable. One person may think that single-payer health care is an extreme idea; another person may think it is perfectly reasonable. > > Ultimately, “extreme” is often a form of political name-calling meant to portray one’s opponent as unelectable and ones’ own self as mainstream. Its mostly true that extremism is subjective, but it is also true that extremism exists. It is not a contradiction to try and define and measure it and again, in this topic and the one in GD, its telling that no conservatives have even attempted to define it, preferring to muck up the conversation with attacks and the tired old tactic of “both sides do it”. I, however, do not subscribe to the notion that both sides deserve equal blame. It is obvious to me that in any measure of number and severity of obstructionism measuring, for example, filibusters, the GOP’s obstructionism is greater than history would suggest the trend should be, and not just greater by a little, but by a lot. Pretending one doesn’t understand math isn’t a good rebuttal against charges of extremism ---
**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 17, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/50 "2014-09-17T17:55:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. That’s only if you view the level of government (however that is measured) as a fixed rate. It is possible for the federal government to do less, and the state and local governments to do less. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > As to your question, I believe that obstruction is an overall negative, but can have positive uses. So then in certain circumstances, obstruction would be a net benefit? Is that a fair interpretation of what you said? If that’s true, then it’s simply an argument when those circumstances arise. So obstruction has positive uses when it’s used to further your goals, but when used to frustrate those same goals then obstruction is being used negatively. Is that about right? > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t know if both sides do it, I’m sure they do to different degrees. But that’s the thing - I want them to obstruct. All of them. I want the government to do as little as possible. > [@](#): > > 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? It is the apex of arrogance to believe you can objectively define what is in a person’s best interests. The conceit of the liberal position is that they believe they know better than everyone else. If you have a discreet measurable item then it’s possible to maximize for that item, but that doesn’t speak to someone’s best interests when you do not know the relative and comparative utility derived from all other things. In other words, of course ‘trite’ and ‘juvenile’ are subjective. The amusing part is that you recognize that, but fail to recognize that ‘best interests’ is also subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/51 "2014-09-17T18:02:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I want the government to do as little as possible. I’m not convinced this is a substantive position rather than just a rhetorical framing. The devil is in competing definitions of “as possible” and also what you count as size. If the federal government bans partial birth abortions, does that count toward it’s size? What about a new regulation pursuant to an old law? Does it increase the size of government if I add homosexuals to the list of protected classes under federal employment laws? What if I scrap EPA rules on carbon and put in place a carbon tax? If I want to cut the military and spend that money on Pell grants, and you want to cut Pell grants and spend that money on the military, are you favoring the government doing as little as possible or not? ---
**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 17, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/52 "2014-09-17T21:05:28Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m not convinced this is a substantive position rather than just a rhetorical framing. The devil is in competing definitions of “as possible” and also what you count as size. I agree. > [@](#): > > If the federal government bans partial birth abortions, does that count toward it’s size? What about a new regulation pursuant to an old law? Does it increase the size of government if I add homosexuals to the list of protected classes under federal employment laws? What if I scrap EPA rules on carbon and put in place a carbon tax? Banning partial birth abortions increases the government’s level of intrusion. So yes. New regulation that is an increase in complexity is an increase. Depends on the carbon rules, but increased complexity or intrusion is an increase. > [@](#): > > If I want to cut the military and spend that money on Pell grants, and you want to cut Pell grants and spend that money on the military, are you favoring the government doing as little as possible or not? If it’s net neutral, then it’s not about size of government, but allocation of funds. That would be a separate topic. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/53 "2014-09-17T21:13:42Z")
Then I don’t necessarily agree that the GOP’s positions on the major contested issues of the day flow from a desire for small government. That doesn’t capture their position on immigration, climate change, medicare reform, defense spending, abortion, and a whole range of other issues. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/54 "2014-09-19T08:53:19Z")
I don’t know why you’re being obtuse, Bone. It’s pretty simple. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to obstruct. But if you do it all the time, then your reasons cannot be legitimate. When your job is to pass legislation, and you don’t pass legislation, you aren’t doing your job. You cannot obstruct everything. This isn’t a politics thing. It’s a life thing. If you obstruct everything in any situation, it’s clear you aren’t actually trying to help. That’s when you become an obstructionist, which is by definition a bad thing. It’s just being butthurt. If I don’t get my way, then I will not let anyone do anything. That’s obstructionism. It is never legitimate. ---
**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 19, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/55 "2014-09-19T14:55:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t know why you’re being obtuse, Bone. It’s pretty simple. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to obstruct. But if you do it all the time, then your reasons cannot be legitimate. When your job is to pass legislation, and you don’t pass legislation, you aren’t doing your job. You cannot obstruct everything. > > This isn’t a politics thing. It’s a life thing. If you obstruct everything in any situation, it’s clear you aren’t actually trying to help. That’s when you become an obstructionist, which is by definition a bad thing. > > It’s just being butthurt. If I don’t get my way, then I will not let anyone do anything. That’s obstructionism. It is never legitimate. A couple points: [ul] [li]You’re using the word “legitimate” in a non-standard way. I take it to mean lawful. How are you using it?[/li][li]A legislator’s job is not to pass legislation.[/li][li]If the ultimate goal is served by obstructing everything, then I would say that on balance it’s a positive.[/li][/ul] ---
**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 19, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/56 "2014-09-19T15:28:18Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Then I don’t necessarily agree that the GOP’s positions on the major contested issues of the day flow from a desire for small government. That doesn’t capture their position on immigration, climate change, medicare reform, defense spending, abortion, and a whole range of other issues. I forgot to respond to this. I generally agree - though I thought this thread was more conceptual and not directly addressing the current GOP. ---
**Author:** ![orangeapples](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@orangeapples](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orangeapples)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/57 "2014-09-19T16:45:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I forgot to respond to this. I generally agree - though I thought this thread was more conceptual and not directly addressing the current GOP. I don’t wish to assign motive to the OP, or to anyone else in this thread, so I will simply state my opinion and acknowledge my own bias rather than accuse someone else of a similar bias. Obstructionism is a thing, it’s a thing that is being used to stifle legitimate governance, and it’s a disservice to the people this Congress is meant to represent. As such, it’s difficult, for me, not to read the OP as an attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of Liberals, “Admit it, guys, you would do the same thing if you were in this situation.” That’s why, in my opinion, some of this might read as directly addressing the current GOP. Because a significant portion of today’s GOP is responsible for this, complicit in this, and gleeful that it should occur. Pointing fingers and claiming, “You lot did it once, too!” is a transparent attempt to deflect attention from this apparent complicity. Obstructionism is like water, see, 32°F and 212°F are both just temperatures, it’s just a matter of degrees. Homespun and contrived analogy, seems folksy but is obviously forced. How am I not a politician already? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/58 "2014-09-19T18:08:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It is the apex of arrogance to believe you can objectively define what is in a person’s best interests. The conceit of the liberal position is that they believe they know better than everyone else. If you have a discreet measurable item then it’s possible to maximize for that item, but that doesn’t speak to someone’s best interests when you do not know the relative and comparative utility derived from all other things. In other words, of course ‘trite’ and ‘juvenile’ are subjective. The amusing part is that you recognize that, but fail to recognize that ‘best interests’ is also subjective. The thing is, sometimes it’s objective. Having health insurance is objectively better than not having health insurance. Having clean air and water is objectively better than not having clean air and water. Earning $10/hour is better than earning $7.25/hour which is better than earning $0.75/hour. Stuff like that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/59 "2014-09-19T18:24:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That’s only if you view the level of government (however that is measured) as a fixed rate. It is possible for the federal government to do less, and the state and local governments to do less. It is not possible politically. ---
**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 19, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/60 "2014-09-19T20:28:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bone** : > > That’s only if you view the level of government (however that is measured) as a fixed rate. It is possible for the federal government to do less, and the state and local governments to do less. I don’t view the level of government as a fixed rate. The rate can be changed. One way the total amount of government can be increased is by crippling the federal government. You may say that you want more limits on the states as well, but just how do you propose to implement those limits? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971.md?page=4)