Hey there, sorry for the delay! This has to be one of the best argued responses with which I disagree.
I think you’re right that the republicans have significant division but I think with trump in the actual presidency, they may be a lot less fractured. The freedom caucus wing takes orders from him and the rank and file are terrified of being primaried from their Right flank, as has happened to so many moderate Republicans.
That being said, I fully agree that hey, let them trip over themselves and fail if they don’t have the votes (I think back to Mcain’s infamous thumbs down.) And I’m basically okay denying those votes. I don’t think you need bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.
But, when more than half the country rejected you, I don’t think the right answer is to hold temper tantrums and silly stuff like not doing photo ops around the presidential transition.
simply voting no on literally every single committee hearing, bill, and budget proposal for the next four years.
Doesn’t seem helpful and gives the republicans more ammo than we’d like. It might feel good in the moment but I think the US is in a very dangerous place right now and I’ll put winning back political power over trying to stop government from functioning. (Especially when, holding the trifecta, that makes it easier for hard line Republicans to win over their more moderate colleagues on changing procedure/decorum etc.)
Yes, Dems try too hard to accommodate but I think that’s the result of their coalition which skews heavily to highly educated, high income folks who actually pay attention to the nuances of politics. If we simply become the anti government party part 2, it hurts our coalition without any obvious gains.
Again, I’m not saying they need to compromise on all or even much legislation. But blindly trying to gum up all the works by voting no on every committee hearing etc just doesn’t seem useful. I dunno, whom are you trying to win over with that strategy? Is it a moral victory that somehow encourages more Dem supporters? Does it somehow appeal to the middle who drifted over to trump and apparently don’t agree that he is an existential threat? Is it just trying to limit damage? I just don’t see a convincing win scenario and a reasonable amount of possible downsides (gives republicans ammo, loses independents, some of the Dem coalition etc.)
Hey there, sorry for the delay! This has to be one of the best argued responses with which I disagree.
I think you’re right that the republicans have significant division but I think with trump in the actual presidency, they may be a lot less fractured. The freedom caucus wing takes orders from him and the rank and file are terrified of being primaried from their Right flank, as has happened to so many moderate Republicans.
That being said, I fully agree that hey, let them trip over themselves and fail if they don’t have the votes (I think back to Mcain’s infamous thumbs down.) And I’m basically okay denying those votes. I don’t think you need bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.
But, when more than half the country rejected you, I don’t think the right answer is to hold temper tantrums and silly stuff like not doing photo ops around the presidential transition.
Doesn’t seem helpful and gives the republicans more ammo than we’d like. It might feel good in the moment but I think the US is in a very dangerous place right now and I’ll put winning back political power over trying to stop government from functioning. (Especially when, holding the trifecta, that makes it easier for hard line Republicans to win over their more moderate colleagues on changing procedure/decorum etc.)
Yes, Dems try too hard to accommodate but I think that’s the result of their coalition which skews heavily to highly educated, high income folks who actually pay attention to the nuances of politics. If we simply become the anti government party part 2, it hurts our coalition without any obvious gains.
Again, I’m not saying they need to compromise on all or even much legislation. But blindly trying to gum up all the works by voting no on every committee hearing etc just doesn’t seem useful. I dunno, whom are you trying to win over with that strategy? Is it a moral victory that somehow encourages more Dem supporters? Does it somehow appeal to the middle who drifted over to trump and apparently don’t agree that he is an existential threat? Is it just trying to limit damage? I just don’t see a convincing win scenario and a reasonable amount of possible downsides (gives republicans ammo, loses independents, some of the Dem coalition etc.)