…should the Democrats obstruct such a Republican president’s agenda, beginning in January 2017, or cooperate and compromise?
For further analysis, if desired, there are three Congressional scenarios:
It should depend upon the agenda.
While I would certainly derive no small amount of Schadenfreude if they did, I’d rather they didn’t. Keeping the country running is more important- or should be more important- than revenge or obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.
I’d actually be a bit surprised if they went on to be as obstructive as the Republicans have been- Democrats aren’t near as organized.
I don’t think any Republican agenda is going to be particularly surprising. It’ll likely be rather predictable.
I don’t see any problem with either party, when in the minority, to try to use whatever power they have to craft compromise legislation that may further the majority’s agenda (but in a way more acceptable to the minority). Sometimes that will work, sometimes it won’t. I hope they don’t shut down the government or try to kill crucial legislation as means to that end.
I prefer cooperation and compromise. However, lest the GOP forgets, “compromise” does not mean you get 100% of what you want.
If, for example, the GOP wants to compromise on immigration, I could see the Dems voting for their dream border fence but in return, the GOP needs to allow the DREAMers to remain in the country. That’s a compromise, both sides gets a little of what they want, neither side gets all
Or, like in health care, people who have gotten it on Obamacare keeps those and subsidies remain, and the GOP gets to put back the lifetime caps and ban people with pre-existing conditions. That’s a compromise.
If, however, you’re simply trying to set yourself up for some hyperbolic cry of hypocrisy down the line, then I’m completely fine with the Dems absolutely obstructing any agenda if the GOP refuses to give an inch. And you will cry hypocrisy and I will ignore you
That depends on what turns out to be in it.
If it’s Ted Cruz’ or Mike Huckabee’s agenda, “obstruct” is probably the only rational response – but, even then, let’s wait to see what’s in it.
I don’t think the minority side usually spends much time contemplating how “much more extreme a President” they could have had, so to speak. Take Obama for example. Obama isn’t the most liberal Democrat that there is around, yet many Republicans who obstructed him probably weren’t thinking, “Hey, we could have ended up with a Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich; compared to many Democrats, Obama isn’t *that *left-wing.” They were thinking to the effect of, “Obama is much more left-wing than us, so his agenda is unacceptable.”
So, if a moderate Republican gets elected in 2016, I don’t think most Democrats, beginning in 2017, will be thinking to the effect of, “Sure, he or she is conservative, but there are many Republicans who are even more right-wing; we could have ended up with a Cruz or Palin.” I think most will just think, He’s a lot more right-wing than us, so, his agenda is unacceptable."
The Tea Party Republicans who are causing all the problems in Congress right now hate the likely R candidate (Jeb Bush) almost as much as they hate Obama, so I doubt there will be any need for the Dems to obstruct. The Republicans will do it to themselves, just as they are now.
No, it’s not nearly so symmetrical as that.
Depends on the agenda, as noted earlier. I would always prefer legislators to try to find common ground and work on things when they can, in good faith, do so in the national interest. Compromise is the essence of lawmaking in a republic. Neither reflexive opposition or unthinking obedience is for the best.
During Presidential election years, it is rare for a House of Congress to change hands, unless it changes to the Party of the new President. The Republicans have performed the reverse trick only once: they won the House in 1916 when incumbent Democrat Wilson was narrowly reelected. Since the unusual election of 1848, the Democrats have also done this trick just once: they won the Senate in 2000 when George W. Bush was narrowly elected.
Odds are good, I think, that if a Republican is President next term, he’ll have a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
As a descendant of French Huguenots whom fled France could I claim a French passport if this happens please…ancestors came from what is now Le département du Cher… i promise not to covert to Islam…
“Convert”? Islam, Calvinism . . . it’s pretty much the same thing already, isn’t it? Kismet!