# Should Obama have been able to get Congress to work with him? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064 "2016-01-13T20:11:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/61 "2016-01-14T05:45:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, it is. It’s right there in the preamble: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. And if you believe that justice is best established by NOT banning “assault weapons” and NOT forcing people to lose their health care plans that they wanted to keep, then the aspirations of the preamble are best served by frustrating Obama’s legislative goals. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/62 "2016-01-14T06:11:30Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Neither side has a monopoly on accelerationism, which arguably isn’t even a bad thing. Remember during the Bush years when Republicans accused the Dems of hoping for America to fail? Not specifically, but it may have blended in with the generalized claims that liberals hated America and were unpatriotic, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/63 "2016-01-14T07:32:56Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > See above. I don’t understand why some people are so enamored with government. Because, generally speaking, the government is able to accomplish necessary things that no other party can or will accomplish. Things like the federal highway system. Or the minimum wage. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/64 "2016-01-14T11:00:16Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > On Inauguration Night, 2009, top Republicans met and they decided that they would block Obama on everything he wanted to do and give him zero cooperation on every issue. They seem to have worked OK together on these trade pacts: [Obama and Republicans cooperate to move trade pacts](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSTRE7923U120111004) ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/65 "2016-01-14T11:13:27Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Well, consider the source. Let’s be careful about post not poster, here. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/66 "2016-01-14T13:12:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And if you believe that justice is best established by NOT banning “assault weapons” and NOT forcing people to lose their health care plans that they wanted to keep, then the aspirations of the preamble are best served by frustrating Obama’s legislative goals. > > Right? Yes, that would be governing. The question wasn’t whether the President and Congress have specific policies set out for them. The question put forth was whether the Constitution gave them the duty to govern the country. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/67 "2016-01-14T13:59:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, that would be governing. > > The question wasn’t whether the President and Congress have specific policies set out for them. The question put forth was whether the Constitution gave them the duty to govern the country. Right – except that my sense of the use of “govern” in the back-and-forth conversation was that it was excluding the act of obstructing Obama’s policy as “governing.” In other words, as I read the conversation, it was along the lines of: “All the Republicans do is obstruct Obama, in contravention of their constitutional duty to govern!” And my point, with which you seem to agree, is that this kind of obstruction is also fairly characterized as governing. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/68 "2016-01-14T14:09:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Right – except that my sense of the use of “govern” in the back-and-forth conversation was that it was excluding the act of obstructing Obama’s policy as “governing.” > > In other words, as I read the conversation, it was along the lines of: > > “All the Republicans do is obstruct Obama, in contravention of their constitutional duty to govern!” > > And my point, with which you seem to agree, is that this kind of obstruction is also fairly characterized as governing. So this definition you are using right now completely encapsulates the concept of ‘governing’ in your mind? Or is this a convenient definition that excludes many aspects of it in order to better make your point? What about refusing to raise the debt ceiling to pay bills already approved by congress, allowing the government to actually shutdown and lowering our credit rating? Do you consider that doing their duty governing? They voted to spend the money, then would not vote to allow us to pay the bills that they already approved. How does that align with their duty as defined in the Constitution? How did that effect the ‘general welfare’ of the country? In a good way or a bad way? You are glossing over most of their failure to govern and are focusing on one aspect (denying Obama legislative successes) as if that tells the entire story. Seems a bit fishy to me counselor. Care to try again using a more complete definition of ‘governing’? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/69 "2016-01-14T14:42:09Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So this definition you are using right now completely encapsulates the concept of ‘governing’ in your mind? It’s certainly one form of governing. Why would assume it “completely encapsulates” the concept? How would you want a Democratic Congress to govern with Trump as president, trying to shut down Mosques, build a giant wall on the border, and carpet bombing Syria? That is not to say Obama is extreme in that sense (at least for me), but I’m merely trying to see if you can see where governing CAN consist of steadfastly opposing the president. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/70 "2016-01-14T14:46:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The title of the thread asks a different question than the opening post. Obama should have been able to get Congress to work with him. But through no fault of his own, he was not able. > That’s a truly reprehensible view of the political process, and it’s a very large part of the reason why Obama wasn’t able to get Congress to work with him. It is _not_ any politician’s job to try to block everything the other party is trying to do. It is all politicians’ job, in all parties, to do what they think is best for the country. The parties are supposed to be fundamentally allies. But instead, we have one party who wants to do what’s best for the country, and another that wants that first party to fail in everything, to the point that they’ll even reverse their positions whenever that first party agrees with them. If you think that passing a law would hurt the country then it is best for the country that the law not be passed. Therefore since it is best for the country to stop the law, it then becomes a politician’s job to keep the law from being passed. Since Obama’s agenda would hurt this country when I vote for a politician I expect them to do everything in their power to keep that agenda from passing. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/71 "2016-01-14T14:50:51Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > The job of politicians is not ‘implementing their agenda’. The job of politicians is running the country. This, from the very beginning of the country, was achieved by bringing together intelligent adults with differing agendas, and allowing them to come to a compromise. The Republicans have not been behaving like adults. As has already been noted, they moved the goalposts when Obama offered them _more_ than they asked for. They came right out and said that the country can go f\*ck itself; they’re going to oppose _everything_ Obama asks for. Politicians do not run the country in any meaningful sense. Their job is to pass legislation that they think would improve the governance of the country. If the other side wants legislation that harms the country then it is their job to oppose that legislation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/72 "2016-01-14T15:05:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Well, for starters, when the Democrats are pushing Republican policy goals. Remember, the Republicans in Congress, _every single one of them_, voted against a health care plan designed by Newt Gingrich… Emphasis added. This (or something similar) seems to be a common meme on this MB, but I’ve never seen a cite for it. Got one? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/73 "2016-01-14T15:07:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s certainly one form of governing. Why would assume it “completely encapsulates” the concept? How would you want a Democratic Congress to govern with Trump as president, trying to shut down Mosques, build a giant wall on the border, and carpet bombing Syria? > > That is not to say Obama is extreme in that sense (at least for me), but I’m merely trying to see if you can see where governing CAN consist of steadfastly opposing the president. I’m asking Bricker if that is the complete definition he is using because he seems to be arguing in a way that indicates that this is how he defines ‘governing’. As if there is nothing else to it. There is routine business that needs to be done by the congress regardless of which party is in power there or in the Executive branch, or what policy goals the President is pursuing. The country still needs to be run. If Trump was president and the Democrats ran congress I would expect them to at least tend to the basic business of the country such as paying the bills they approved to spend, and not shutting down the government and lowering the nations credit rating. I would expect them to occasionally vote on some judicial nominees as well since we actually do need the courts to be staffed to carry out the nations business. If all congress does is hold its breath and refuse to carry out its duties as defined in the constitution how can that be considered governing in any meaningful sense of the word? What would they be getting paid for, throwing a giant tantrum? How does that effect the general welfare I’ll ask again? ---
**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:** [January 14, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/74 "2016-01-14T15:07:55Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Simple. All he had to do was give the Republicans everything they wanted, and stop asking for things they didn’t want, and they would have worked with him no problem. > > You know, the Republican definition of ‘compromise’. No, that wouldn’t be enough. Since much of the GOP agenda would be recognizably bad for most Americans, it wouldn’t be enough for Obama to support it. He’d have to convince the Democrats in Congress to all vote for it as well, so that the Republicans could vote against it and blame the Democrats when the GOP program is adopted. (That’s just what happened when the Democrats adopted the GOP version of health care reform.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/75 "2016-01-14T15:54:06Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I’m asking Bricker if that is the complete definition he is using because he seems to be arguing in a way that indicates that this is how he defines ‘governing’. As if there is nothing else to it. Did you miss the word “also” in his post? Doesn’t that mean there IS something else? > [@Bricker](#): > > …this kind of obstruction is also fairly characterized as governing. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/76 "2016-01-14T16:13:15Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I’m asking Bricker if that is the complete definition he is using because he seems to be arguing in a way that indicates that this is how he defines ‘governing’. As if there is nothing else to it. > > There is routine business that needs to be done by the congress regardless of which party is in power there or in the Executive branch, or what policy goals the President is pursuing. The country still needs to be run. If Trump was president and the Democrats ran congress I would expect them to at least tend to the basic business of the country such as paying the bills they approved to spend, and not shutting down the government and lowering the nations credit rating. I would expect them to occasionally vote on some judicial nominees as well since we actually do need the courts to be staffed to carry out the nations business. If all congress does is hold its breath and refuse to carry out its duties as defined in the constitution how can that be considered governing in any meaningful sense of the word? What would they be getting paid for, throwing a giant tantrum? How does that effect the general welfare I’ll ask again? As **John Mace** points out, the question you ask is answered clearly by the post I made. To answer your specific question, while I agree that the time to make a principled stand is the budget vote, not the debt ceiling vote which your prior budget vote made necessary, I contend that this recalcitrance is an example of unwise governing as opposed to a lack of governing. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/77 "2016-01-14T16:24:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > They seem to have worked OK together on these trade pacts: > > [Obama and Republicans cooperate to move trade pacts](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSTRE7923U120111004) When it’s one of their pet desires, sure. Filling lower court vacancies and ambassorships (even Mexico!), not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/78 "2016-01-14T16:25:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, as I read the conversation, it was along the lines of: > > “All the Republicans do is obstruct Obama, in contravention of their constitutional duty to govern!” > > And my point, with which you seem to agree, is that this kind of obstruction is also fairly characterized as governing. No, my post was responding to D’Anconia’s claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which obligates Congress to govern. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/79 "2016-01-14T16:27:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As **John Mace** points out, the question you ask is answered clearly by the post I made. > > To answer your specific question, while I agree that the time to make a principled stand is the budget vote, not the debt ceiling vote which your prior budget vote made necessary, I contend that this recalcitrance is an example of unwise governing as opposed to a lack of governing. I don’t think so. You seem satisfied that simply refusing to cooperate with the President on anything qualifies as governing, which ignores absolutely everything else that is considered as part of that word. If that’s not the point you were making, then I don’t think your point actually answered anything. If you refuse to do any important aspect of keeping the country running and to promote the general welfare of the country, then you are not governing. You seem to be saying that as long as you are doing one thing that can be stretched to be considered part of governing then you are doing your entire job. If that’s not your point, then I’m afraid I don’t get what you’re trying to say and how it actually disproves my claim. Also, causing actual measurable harm to the country such as lowering our credit rating should not simply be referred to as ‘unwise governing’ when their failure to do their basic job is what led to that happening. I guess I hold our elected officials to a bit of a higher standard than you do. I expect them to not purposely harm the country out of spite. Your mileage may vary of course. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/80 "2016-01-14T16:32:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > When it’s one of their pet desires, sure. Which contradicts what you originally posted, and what others posted, too. That is not to say that the Republicans have been a model of cooperation, but the level of obstruction is not quite what it’s being made out to be by many in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=5)