The Wages of Obstruction

Via Chris Bowers this curious Gallup poll result on rising congressional approval -- a phenomenon driven almost entirely by Republicans. The partisan breakout on congressional approval here is crucial to understanding the low ratings the congress gets. Rather than a case of liberal overreach alienating people, the issue here is that for a Democrat-controlled institution, the congress is horribly unpopular with Democrats.

This turns out to be the wages of constant filibustering. When the Democrats were in the minority, every effort they made at blocking the GOP agenda was greeting with conservative efforts to psyche them out, often re-enforced by lazy centirsts in the press, all centered around the idea that there'd be some dire price to be paid for obstruction. American politics does not, in fact, appear to function this way. Minority party obstructionism, whether of the Clinton administration's initiatives in 1993, or the Pelosi/Reid leadership's initiative in 2007, actually seems to generate a sense that the majority has "failed" rather than a sense of outrage aimed at the minority.

This is why I'm skeptical that any of these big picture health care reforms can possibly pass. It's going to be very much in the interests of the Republican to block ay such proposals -- irrespective of their content -- and the rewards to wavering Democrats for abandoning the reform side will be large.

Comments

Does it comes as any suprise? Reid can't get anything worthwhile passed in the Senate, yet lets that knuckle dragger Cornyn introduce that Resolution bashing MoveOn.org. Reid is horrid. He shouldn't be Majority Leader. How the caucus let him get to this spot, I'll never know.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 21, 2007 9:36 AM

Joe Klein is right, of course. It's a question of priorities.

And lets be honest here, Democrats hate them over a lot of things that they could have done something about. They could force Republicans to actually, you know, filibuster something. Suxch efforts DO take work, and the Republicans can always fuck up and fail. By not forcing them to go through with out out of laziness, the Democrats show themselves to be failures.

There are also issues like the FISA and the Move-On resolution that never had to be voted on in the first place. I still haven't heard an adequate explanation as to why the first happened (I just don't believe the Democrats are so stupid as to be rolled time after time, or they would never have won their respective elections). Democrats have good reason not to favor the Democratic congress right now, it's not all over-high ex[ectations.

Posted by Soullite | September 21, 2007 9:51 AM

Does anybody seriously believe that Republican approval of Congress doubled in one month?

Posted by ostap | September 21, 2007 9:55 AM

Part of the problem is that the Democrats only control the Senate on domestic issues. When Joe Lieberman is your majority, it's tough to get "liberal" on foreign policy. It's even tougher when half the Democrats simply don't want to take a stand on foreign policy or "terrorism." Their preferred solution is to vote both ways, resulting in the ridiculous resolution condemning the Move On ad. Until the Democrats know what they think on defense, foreign policy, and intelligence issues, they'll keep on losing.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 21, 2007 10:01 AM

I'm with ostap. The two polls aren't reconcilable. There must be other organizations polling the popularity of Congress - what do they say?

Posted by Jinchi | September 21, 2007 11:52 AM

American politics does not, in fact, appear to function this way.

Last year the word filibuster was an epithet. The year before that, everyone believed there was a "nuclear option". This year we all "know" that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through Congress.

You're right. This isn't how American politics works. Democrats have been fighting on the wrong playing field, trying to win where their opposition has an advantage.

Democrats control the bills that come to the floor, they control the committees that write the bills and they have the majority needed to pass any legislation. They also have the ability to filibuster bad "compromise" bills.

They have to fight where the Republicans want legislation passed. McConnell can filibuster the Webb amendment, but he can't filibuster the president a Defense budget. Webb's amendment was stopped, but Democrats could still pass it if they refuse to vote for a bill without it.

Posted by Jinchi | September 21, 2007 12:02 PM

"...actually SEEMS to generate a sense that the majority has "failed" rather than a sense of outrage aimed at the minority".

It doesn't "seem to generate", it is generated by both Republicans and The Media.

and, BTW, it generates that sense only when Democrats are in the majority. When it's Dems filibustering, Republicans and The Media aim their outrage at the Dems.

Am I the only one to see that???????????????

Posted by frank schmitz | September 21, 2007 12:24 PM

Funny how the Dems didn't hesitate to filibuster Bush judicial nominees time and time again but didn't raise a finger to try to stop things like Iraq war funding or FISA.

Bunch of wimps, bought and paid for by the same fat cats that yank Republican chains.

Posted by kafka | September 21, 2007 3:22 PM

Re: This is why I'm skeptical that any of these big picture health care reforms can possibly pass.

Right now, you'd have reason to be skeptical. The Senate is 49-49 with two independents, one of whom is voting increasingly like a Republican. But look at what's happening on SChip: Bush's threatened veto may well be overridden (in fact, it almost certainly will in the Senate, despite the close balance). The GOP is also going to lose seats next year. And in the aftermath of that the GOP will want to be on the winning side of at least some issues. If healthcare reform looks like a done deal (as it initially did in 1993) the GOP will not obstruct, but will of course seek to cut the best deal they can get for their special interests-- which is what Dole was prepared to do in 1993 except that the Clintons ignored him. Obviously we will need a Democrat in the White House and those extra Democratic seats in both houses, but I predict if that comes to pass (especially if the election is a blow out) the GOP will be willing to bargain, if only to get the issue off the front burner with the electorate. In this respect too remember Medicare Part D-- after years of onstruction the GOP finally realized they had to swallow Rx care for seniors. Granted they did their best to turn it into a boondoggle for the pharmacy industry, and we risk that with healthcare reform via-a-vis the insurers too. But I think that will be the GOP's gambit, not outright intransigence.

Posted by JonF | September 21, 2007 8:37 PM

Am I the only one to see that???????????????

No, of course not. We've gone in a few short years from "the Democrats are preventing a straight up-and-down vote" to "the Democrats can't muster the 60 votes needed for passage", and it isn't that the Senate's procedural rules have changed. It's that the Republicans can play both sides of this game better than the Dems, and the media play along with them.

I used to give Harry Reid the benefit of the doubt, but that time's past. Now if only we could do something with the media.

Posted by noncarborundum | September 21, 2007 11:48 PM