Gee, what a coincidence…
Maybe we have different definitions of obstructionism, but IMO, fighting for policies your constituents want isn’t obstructionist. I don’t care if it’s not a principled stance, but a purely political one. They are doing what the voters want them to do, so they can’t be obstructionist.
What if Democrats proposed spending cuts and the Republicans voted against them? Would you call that obstructionist? If you would, then Republicans would be obstructing whenever they vote against democrats no matter which way the vote on spending. That seems like a biased way to define obstructionism, no?
Hey, you’re the one who brought it up. You said it was one of the “core Republican beliefs”. Now you say you don’t care why they’re doing it.
Sure they can. The Republicans showed no inclination to listen to these people when they were in power, so why start now? It looks for all the world like obstructionism, and when questioned they throw up their hands and say “just following the will of the voters.”
In the great political satire Yes, Minister, when the Prime Minister wished to rationalize some craven and cowardly decision, he’d say “The people have elected me. I am their leader. I must follow them.”
We’re just arguing over definitions now. I think we can both agree that Republican politicians don’t really care about deficits. Just look at Dick “deficits don’t matter” Cheney.
I just don’t think it’s fair to call them obstructionists when they finally decide to do something that the voters want them to do. As a politician the least you can do is to follow the will of the people. No matter what your beliefs are, when you do that at least you’re doing what you were elected to do.
They are using a tactic that allows a minority of Senators to over rule a majority of elected Senators. This tactic was little used in the past, and was part of the “gentlemens’ club” tradition of the Senate. If used to the degree that it is now, there will never again an effective government. If the Democrats are a minority again at some point they could block every single one of President Palin’s cabinet and Supreme Court Justice nominations, they could refuse to pass a budget, or certify new Senators, or allocate funds the next time a natural disaster hits Crackerville. California and Massachusetts and the other states conservatives hate would do fine, as the less money they send to DC the less the conservative leach states will get back in disproportional spending. Imagine how popular Senators will be in their home state if they can’t get pork barrel funds for the NASCAR museum or the “loan a set of teeth for the wedding picture” service.
It’s originally attributed to French radical Alexandre Ledru-Rollin.
-
If they only listen to the will of the people when it’s convenient for them, they’re not really listening.
-
Just how strong is this fiscal conservative movement among the voters? They get a lot of news coverage, but that doesn’t mean there’s a lot of them. Is this the will of a majority of Republicans’ constituents, or just a very vocal minority?
-
If you’re so gung ho about a senator following the will of his constituents, shouldn’t the Senate, as a whole, follow the will of a majority of its members? A majority of senators, elected by majorities in their states, want things to go forward. Isn’t blocking that the very definition of obstructionism?
That obstructionism is in the eye of the beholder, and it all depends on whether it’s your gore getting oxed, or your ox getting gored.
-XT
That doesn’t mean they’re obstructionist. I think that being obstructive implies that you are blocking legislation unreasonably, not disingenuously. It’s reasonable for a politician to be disingenuous as long as he does what the people want. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for politicians to be disingenuous. The profession calls on people to take views that they don’t believe in from time to time.
If you think that being disingenuous in politics automatically makes you an obstructionist, then we aren’t going to agree here.
Are you saying most conservatives aren’t financial conservatives? Conservative people don’t agree with added to the deficit. Conservatives might disagree on what constitutes too much, but they all can agree that a 900 billion dollar health care program is over the limit.
A Senator’s job is to do what’s best for the people in his State, not the whole country. That’s the way the Senate was designed. So that the interests of the majority in large states doesn’t shut out the regional interests of small states.
I’m not gung ho about them following the will of their constituents, I just think there is nothing obstructionist about it.
There is something obstructionist about it when the will of the governing body – in this case, the Senate – is overturned.
So, can we accurately say obstructionism is an official Republican tactic now?
If not, how long does this “no committee hearings” have to go on in the Senate for it to qualify as pure obstructionism?