Much is made of Republican obstructionism of Obama legislation or policies, but pragmatically speaking, it seems that the US political system is simply one that gives little incentive for the opposition party to compromise.
If a Republican Congressman compromises with Obama, here’s what would happen.
He would anger a lot of his Republican supporters. That’s not going to be good for him politically.
He would have caved in on an issue that he himself probably cares about personally. Say that he votes for the ACA in the name of “compromise,” even though he doesn’t like the ACA. That would be irksome to him.
He would gain little, politically. Democrats aren’t going to vote for him just because he “compromised.” They have their own Democratic candidate they can vote for. Faced with a choice between a Democrat, and a non-obstructionist Republican, why wouldn’t the Democratic voters simply still vote for the Democrat?
He wouldn’t gain much praise in the media for not being obstructionist. “Not being obstructionist,” in itself, simply isn’t much to be praised about.
By compromising, the Republicans would be handing the Obama administration a political victory, thus further enhancing Obama’s image. The Republicans wouldn’t consider it in their interest to do so.
So, all in all, don’t the pros of obstructionism simply outweigh the cons, pragmatically speaking?
An individual rep may not represent a district where the party members that elected them hold opinions in lockstep with the nationwide platform. To get reelected they need to fit how their district skews. It’s possible to toe the party line and get in trouble with the members of the Party who actually reside in your district/state,
Negotiation 101 is finding something that you can both agree on that is better than no agreement. It’s possible when addressing some issues to find a compromise that both sides think is better than simply doing nothing.
It’s possible withing negotiation to give away something that you weight less important to get something you weight as being more important. In situations where both sides can trade on things that they weight differently both side can come out better than avoiding an agreement.
The point of compromise is to get some stuff you want in exchange for passing some stuff the other side wants. Most of the repercussions would not be there if Republicans did not need to paint every single thing the democrats/Obama do as Literally The Worst Thing Ever That Will Instantly Destroy America instead of a simple difference of opinion on how best to solve Americas problems in order to scare their voters.
Politics is supposed to be about more than just winning elections. It’s supposed to be about running the country in the best manner. Winning elections should just be a means to that end.
So with that viewpoint, there are obvious incentives to compromise with the opposition. It’s often the best way to get things done. Let’s say you’re a conservative who thinks the most important thing this country needs is a reduction in the corporate tax rate. The problem is you can’t get enough votes to enact a law lowering it.
But you find out there are some liberals who think the most important thing the country needs is a raise in the minimum wage. Now you don’t agree with that. But you think lowering the corporate tax rate is more important than the minimum wage. And the liberals don’t agree with you about the corporate tax rate. But they don’t think the tax rate is as important as the minimum wage.
If you guys refuse to compromise, neither of you will get the thing you think is most important. But if you’re willing to compromise, both of you can get the most important item on your agenda.
The calculus is different for every politician. There are a lot of Republicans who have made long histories compromising and working with the other side. Basically, in politics, you have to find your niche. A guy like Ted Cruz has found his niche as the conservative purist who will fight for principles and never, ever compromise. JOhn McCain is just as conservative as Ted Cruz, but is willing to work with the other side. Other politicians are known as wonks, like Paul Ryan(who also did good work on a compromise budget with Patty Murray).
The thing about reaching out to the other side is that you have to be smart, a good negotiator, and you have to succeed. Legislators that get big deals done have more pull than the obstructors. When Democrats propose a major piece of legislation, the first people they seek out are people like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Olympia Snowe. If they are opposed, the Democrats realize pretty quickly that they’ve got a problem. Sometimes the opposition of just those three can stop a bill in its tracks in a way that Ted Cruz can’t. That’s the benefit of being perceived by your colleagues as working in good faith.
That’s a very interesting and insightful way to look at things. Sure, there are non-political reasons to compromise, but you put it entirely in political terms. Obstuctionism reduces your political power.
It can, but everyone can’t be a compromiser. There has to be people like Alan Grayson and Ted Cruz, because someone has to be the ideological hero. And frankly, while 80% of what those figures say is nonsense, sometimes they also say what no one else is willing to say but that needs to be said.
I think this is the key point to what puts us in the situation we are in today. If, as McConnell said, their primary goal was to make Obama a one term president then American prosperity under an Obama administration is against the Republicans best interest. You can see this in the ways in which they attempt to sabotage Obamacare by refusing subsidies and resisting setting up exchanges, and their attempts to scuttle the Iran negotiations. You can also tell by the almost gleeful way in which they capitalize on bad economic news, that gives the impression that deep down they wish unemployment would go back up to 10%.
Sorry, but if Republicans wanted to sabotage Obama, they’d let everything he wanted pass and thus ruin his administration. The reason things are so much better now is because the electorate saved Obama from his worst instincts starting in Nov., 2010.
In a one-off situation, there is absolutely no reason to compromise ever. But politics is never like that. If all you ever do is dig in your heels, puff out you cheeks and cry “nnnnNO!” then that is all anyone will ever expect from you and you cease to exist in the negotiation world–eventually nobody will offer you a concession or entertain your demands. On the other hand, if you oppose making a concession by clearly explaining its weaknesses in terms the other party understands, and offering a counter proposal (a concession which includes a request for a concession) then both parties are on their way to 1) doing a deal and 2) moving onto the next case with increased mutual respect. Respect is not sexy so you won’t see much of it in the news, but it exists even in Congress. And it is important to gain respect, even from your opposition, because it clears a ton of baggage out of a negotiation when both parties know going in that the other is going to listen, weigh, and decide rationally on their position–maybe even to the point of abandoning their original position entirely for your more sensible one.
Not if you put yourself in the head of a Republican. If all those things that Obama wants are bad for the country, let him have them and things go to pot and you win the next election.
Heck, probably half the reason GWB was such a massive failure is because Democrats gave him enough rope to hang himself with. A more obstructionist Democratic Party could have stopped the tax cuts for starters.