SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home McConnell, Boehner Not In Compromising Mood

JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 30, 2010

McConnell, Boehner Not In Compromising Mood

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell say the election proves the American people favor the hard-line Republican agenda on everything:

When congressional leaders of both parties meet at the White House today, all of us will have an opportunity to show the American people that we got the message of the elections earlier this month.

Republicans heard the voters loud and clear. They want us to focus on preventing a tax hike on every taxpayer, reining in Washington spending and making it easier for employers to start hiring again. Today, Republican leaders renew our offer to work with anyone, from either party, who is ready to focus on the priorities of the American people.

The day after the election, President Obama seemed to acknowledge that a change in course is needed when he conceded that "the overwhelming message" he heard from the voters was "we want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy."

Despite what some Democrats in Congress have suggested, voters did not signal they wanted more cooperation on the Democrats' big-government policies that most Americans oppose. On the contrary, they want both parties to work together on policies that will help create the conditions for private-sector job growth. They want us to stop the spending binge, cut the deficit and send a clear message on taxes and regulations so small businesses can start hiring again.

This is so deep into the realm of spin it's not worth evaluating as a normative claim. (When Democrats win elections, Republicans say that the message is that they should enact the agenda of the Republican base; when Republicans win elections, they say the message is that they should enact the agenda of the Republican base.) What's interesting is that the Republican leaders are not bothering to even feign interest in cooperation. And of course this makes perfect sense. The GOP's interest as a party is to refrain from giving President Obama any bipartisan accomplishments he could use to help win reelection. And Boehner and McConnell's interests as party leaders is to avoid the perception that they're too cozy with Obama, which is the only real threat to their power.

In any case, there's not much point in pretending that the parties might cooperate on anything.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 13 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

13 comments

Other newsworthy items: 1. The Sun rises in the east. 2. The Ocean is wet. 3. Milk is white. 4. Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Socialist Fascist Progressive Woodrow-Wilson-wannabe.

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There has been no possibility of cooperation from the moment Obama won the election. Can the Democrats please just get over this ridiculous notion that Republicans will do anything other than obstruct government and then flay Democrats for failing to govern? The only option for the Democrats is to gird for political and ideological warfare and then conduct it relentlessly. The ONLY thing that matters here and now are political and rhetorical tactics to beat back the Republicans and keep them on the defensive. There is no possibility of governing until that is done so let the theatrics begin. Absolutely nothing else matters. Along the way, if the Republicans can be bullied effectively, there may be some small victories, such as New Start or even a payroll tax holiday -- using the Republican rhetoric about not taxing job creators against them. Screw everything. These people must be defeated before our country can be rescued.

- roidubouloi

November 30, 2010 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least the majority of the comments on the Post op-ed piece seem to be calling them on their BS.

- frippo

November 30, 2010 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid says all that needs to be said on this matter.

- liberal reformer

November 30, 2010 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree with Roid. My electorate reading: (1) Economy was the issue in the election. (2) Republicans want taxes low like they were when President Obama took office. (3) Republicans want less spending. (4) Low taxes did not fix the economy; (5) it follows that either stimulus spending is bad for the economy in voters minds or their wasn't enough of it. Aternatively: (a) voters didn't care about the economy; or (b) voters worry what Democrats might do or not do if in power. After 8 years ending in a Bush Crash, how could voters have wanted for anything other than spending enough to get out of the Bush Crash?

- Nusholtz

November 30, 2010 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is strong theoretical support for Roid's position. In "The Evolution of Cooperation", author Robert Axelrod identifies (and demonstates in a research experiment) four characteristics of strategies most likely to prevail. Such strategies are: 1) "Nice" i.e. they start out willing to collaborate; 2) "Provocable" i.e. if the other side refuses to cooperate or "defects, they retaliate in kind; 3) "Forgiving" i.e. after retaliating, they resume offering to collaborate; and 4) "Easily Readable" i.e. they are open and transparent about being "Nice", "Provocable", and "Forgiving". With this theoretical framework, it is easy to see that while the Obama Administration has been hitting the mark on "Nice" and "Forgiving", it has been woefully lacking in the "Provocable" area. To follow Roid's advice, Obama and his staff should be preparing a large repertoire of provocable options and deploying them accordingly. My greatest concern is that "Provocable" is just not in Obama's DNA.

- JackR

November 30, 2010 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with stopping the bipartisan bullshit, but how is it to be done? There seems to be no leadership on the Democratic side to do what Roid suggests. This man we elected as president, based largely on the strength of his incredible eloquence and rhetoric seems to have none left any more, and there are NO other leaders on the Democratic side, elected or otherwise. The Right is so much more coordinated, and relentless is not an adjective I would typically associate with the bumblers that make up the Democratic party. Unless the economy stays completely in the tank, I think Obama will win a second term, but that is scant consolation for the utter shambles that the Democratic party communication machine is and will continue to be. I'd rather almost he lost than go through 4 more years of the torture that the Obama presidency has been.

- NR409654

November 30, 2010 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo Roid, Mr. Bipartisanship himself, David Broder, had an op-ed in Sunday's Post calling for Obama to prove himself trustworthy to Republicans, to move to them, and for Republicans to "trust, but verify" Obama's willingness to cooperate. Did Broder pay ANY attention during the Affordable Care Act "debate"? From day one Republicans refused to cooperate. The White House spent months trying to woo the 2 ladies from Maine. The GOP is not a real political party, it is not a "loyal opposition", it is not a trustworthy bargaining partner. It's a loony bin, scared to death of the Tea Partiers, moving so far to the extreme right that positions the GOP supported a few years ago are now labeled "socialism". It uses the power of the mob to intimdiate (a tactic honed during the Florida recount). The GOP wants power, not to govern, but to conduct class warfare. BTW, I would remind Sen. McConnell that he is still the Senate MINORITY leader.

- dubyadoubte

November 30, 2010 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's the question I wish some journalist would ask one of the these guys who claim a sweeping mandate from any political victory: OK, if you're suggesting the recent election results demonstrate the will of the people and their desire to pursue the agenda you are promulgating, then if President Obama is re-elected, are you willing to pledge your total support to his agenda for his second term as a manifestation of the will of the American people expressed through the electorate?

- Ouroboros

November 30, 2010 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"to move to them" Forget the next election ouroboros, one wonders why it was not incumbent on the Republicans to "move to" the Democrats when in 2008 the Democrats won the White House and both houses of Congress. Instead, we got total obstruction and non-cooperation. Somehow, a mandate is only a mandate when it obliges everyone to do what the Republican nutcases most want to do. That even now they control only one house of Congress while the Democrats control the other and the executive branch also does not suggest to them for an instant that they ought to move toward the Democrats. I cannot bear belonging to such a stupid party, the Democratic party, any longer. When will they wake up?

- roidubouloi

November 30, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"then if President Obama is re-elected, are you willing to pledge your total support to his agenda for his second term as a manifestation of the will of the American people expressed through the electorate?" When a Muslim Kenyan Socialist Faschist "wins" elections, it is because 1) the Republicans were not as right wing as the majority, so the majority voted for the socialist candidate; and 2) the Muslim Kenyan did not actually win, but stole the election through Acorn and the TelePrompTer. When are you liberalfascists going to learn the facts of life?

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahh Roid, You forgot the other part of the equation. You see the GOP didn't lose in 2008 or 2006 by having unpopular policies or their breathtaking incompetence. You see they lost because they "turned their back on Reagan." The became "Democrat lite." etc. etc. (You have heard it before.) Ergo, They didn't really lose those elections. They defeated themselves by not being conservative enough. See in this reality, you never really lose an election per se.

- MikeB.

November 30, 2010 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh.

- roidubouloi

December 1, 2010 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close