Republican Political Strategy
Straight from a spoiled 7 year old’s parental manipulation manifesto.
“Just say no!” To everything. Do it until you get everything you want. Say it as loudly and obnoxiously as possible. While at it, throw in bunches of political innuendo, apocalyptic rhetoric, fears about death panels, and refer to the President as the Anti-Christ Socialismo. Repeat ad nauseam. Never once even feign compromise. Be bulwark and intractable in your repudiation of anything other than mainstream Republican ideas and policy. In short, be a huge uncompromising dick. Violators be damned – literally.
This strategy makes (or will make) America nearly ungovernable. It thwarts any possibility for genuine negotiation and compromise. It emphatically shoves a fat log into the political turbines.
Is it politically immature and potential harmful to the general health and standing of the U.S.? Yeah, duh. But, as far as political strategies go, it’s ingenious. The GOP is holding out for total surrender, and it’s working – for better or worse.
Yglesias recaps the strategy nicely:
[The GOP has] an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.
The GOP. The party of spite. They will win despite because of their bitter spitefulness.
On a side note, although the picture may be a tad bit inappropriate, it was way too cool to pass up. It can be justified insofar as it accurately depicts the Republican mantra of strict obedience to party line. Right?
I’m not sure its so much a strategy as a personality type. These are the same people who apposed civil rights. The Strom Thurmonds of our generation. Sad as it seems, American politics often rewards the stubborn two year olds who stamp their foot and refuse to budge, and this will probably remain the case until several huge shifts take place.
1. We realize its not cowardice to change your mind.
2. We become less gullible (an uphill struggle to be sure, against the forces of evolution).
3. Texas finally secedes from the Union.
So in other words, yeah their annoying, but their probably here to stay.
“These are the same people who opposed civil rights.”
Think again. 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat percentage is only in the 60s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
Sorry Reason. You very conveniently failed to mention that the Republican party in 1964 was composed mostly of northern liberal and moderate party members. Democrats, on the other hand,were made up of mostly southern conservative “dixicrats” who were violently opposed to civil rights Civil Rights legislation was primarily responsible for the re-allignment of both parties in the years that followed. It’s notable that the modern Democratic party still contains moderate and conservative members in its body, while the Republicans have purged anybody that fails to meet their conservative core values.
Whoops, sorry. These are the same people who continue to oppose civil rights.
Reason:
The Democratic and Republican parties have both been progressive at times and conservative at other times- when I said “these people,” I was referring to a personality type that I think is typical of social conservatives. Sorry for the confusion. ( :
Can we please retire the “Democrats opposed civil rights legislation” trope already? Its clearly true that the primary political obstacle to civil rights in the 50s and 60s was a block of mainly Democratic politicians, but its also rather obvious that that issue was pivotal to the party realignment process that turned the South Republican. Suggesting otherwise is either baldly disingenuous or hilariously ignorant.
Well, well, well… look what the cat drug in!
How are you? Where are you? How’s mum?
You should return to your prior status as premier commenter. Business has been slower than usual (several reasons for that – work, marriages, etc.).
I’ve had two recent thoughts dominating how I think about the GOP healthcare strategy. They probably won’t make it into a separate timely post, so let me summarize.
1. Gridlock precedent. I’ve heard a lot of commentators assert that the GOP is setting a precedent of the opposition party stonewalling the majority’s significant legislation and refusing to compromise, but I don’t think this is valid. First, the opposition party nearly always does that anyway. Second, the GOP has already been doing that since before this recent healthcare debate. Third, and most importantly, what are these pieces of major legislation that the GOP might propose against the Democrats’ unwaivering opposition? The GOP does not define itself by the major government programs it seeks to enact. When they do propose significant legislation, it is usually something like a tax cut or something national security related. Good luck to the Democrats following this so-called precedent and opposing those things.
2. GOP strategy. Thinking about number 1 always brings me to this question: if the positions were reversed and healthcare were a GOP issue and the Republicans needed to push it through, what kind of strategy would they have used? I have no doubt that they would have gotten it done early last year. Among other things, I’m sure they would have forced time constraints on the debate. Can you imagine how successful the PATRIOT Act would have been if debate had – instead of just a few days – lasted over a year and included long recesses and town halls? They would have made the debate seem urgent and personal. Everything the Republicans did during their last stint in power needed to be done urgently. Obama sort of experimented with this technique with the financial stuff early on (which really was urgent), but for some reason he was unable to push with full urgency on healthcare. They also would have made it personal. It isn’t personal to talk about the “48 million” or whatever it is, because most of the people listening are not in that 48 million and because numbers are never interesting. The healthcare-loving GOP would have made this seem personal to every person listening, even to the point of stretching the truth. Think about how they made middle and lower class people advocate so strongly against the “death tax,” which never would have affected them anyway. Those who heard the GOP’s message felt the urgent and personal nature of it. Finally, the GOP leadership would have led the way strongly. The GOP president would have put forward a specific proposal (instead of “leaving it to Congress to sort out the details). He would have pushed his proposal hard and he wouldn’t have let members of his own party sabotage it. Congressional and Senate leaders would have whipped hard, shortened debate, and gotten bills passed.
During the Bush administration, the GOP held the White House as well as slim majorities in both houses for most of the two terms. How many times did it come up that the barely-minority Democrats were able to stonewall the Republicans’ agenda on a major issue? Here Democrats are with a president elected by an electoral landslide, a commanding majority in the House, and a super-majority in the Senate…
I wish we could rent out the Republican leadership to get our own agenda done sometimes. Since the State of the Union address in 2009, every piece of news about this healthcare reform has been bad news. Every new development has been the Democrats backing away from their original positions and giving up ground for basically nothing on the other side (major sacrifices for Snowe voting to approve it in committee but not on the floor. Yay.) or compromising heavily for their own members (Nelson).
Democrats are governing like they are a minority party that has to build a bipartisan coalition for everything. Apparently they read the 2008 election differently from how I did.
http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=f39f157ffb4bac6e99443239c7032e61