The duty of Republican opposition
David Frum
Shrum’s advice for Republicans is half right.
It’s true, for example, that the tactics that worked for the GOP in 1993 won’t work in 2009. Back then, Republicans faced a new but already scandal-battered president who had recklessly outraced his weak, 43-percent mandate.
In 1993, the new president’s signature initiative—health care—was complex and widely disliked; he offered an abrupt and convulsive lurch to address a problem that called instead for incremental and consultative solutions.
Finally, in 1993 the Republican Party could see a governing majority within reach. Ross Perot’s voters leaned Republican, and many Democratic congressional seats looked (and were) vulnerable.
None of these conditions applies today. Barack Obama has a real mandate and enjoys real popularity. He skillfully avoids Bill Clinton’s divisive and self-destructive missteps. What’s more, the crisis to which Obama is responding is inescapably urgent. And of course, today’s Republican Party is a weaker and more beleaguered reduction of its 1993 self. Unless it chooses its fights very carefully, the GOP will be rolled right over.
Now, here is where Shrum is wrong.
Republicans can plainly see that in the name of “fiscal stimulus” Barack Obama is planning to do a lot of things that will in no way help alleviate the downturn.
Some of these plans may have some merit on their own, and where they do, Republicans can do themselves and the country a favor by seeing if it’s possible to work cooperatively. With action on health likely inevitable, it’s better that Republicans participate in the work to ensure a result that’s market-sensitive. Action on climate change and the environment is essential, so Republicans should promote nuclear power, the cheapest alternative to dirty coal, and should resist further subsidies to costly fantasies like wind and solar.
But Republicans also should never forget that Obama is a Chicago pol. His plans will be larded with special favors and ripe for abuse. We already know where the worst will be. Chicago style, Obama will cram them into the one department to which he has named a Republican as cabinet secretary (the better to share the blame). Look for the Department of Transportation to be chock full of bridges to nowhere, roads to everywhere and hands out all around.
In a similar vein, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the government’s $700-billion bailout engine, is an enigma wrapped in a mystery, dispensing billions in tax dollars on nobody knows what. Likewise, impending cap-and-trade plans to create carbon dioxide pollution permits will create billions in new money—which is essentially what emissions permits are—and distribute them to favored industries.
So clearly, there will be a role in Obama’s Washington for an opposition party that protects taxpayers and exposes corruption.
Benjamin Disraeli once said, “The duty of an opposition is to oppose.” That aptly describes politics in a parliamentary system. It is not true in a congressional system, where the opposition can wield influence upon legislation and must therefore make strategic decisions about when to cooperate and when to fight.
Republicans should make those decisions cannily and unemotionally. Obama seems cleverly determined to adopt a less polarizing style than his two immediate predecessors, and Republicans would do well to avoid being maneuvered into the role of mindless oppositionists.
At the same time, Obama’s views and instincts seem further left of center than Bill Clinton’s, especially on economic matters. If so, conflict will be unavoidable. Who else will speak for enterprise, markets, and freedom if Republicans do not?
We still don’t know whether Barack Obama sincerely shares Shrum’s nostalgia for the unionized, regulated economy fastened upon the United States by the New Deal. My guess is no. But if I am wrong, then Republicans will have no choice but to resist. Sometimes you have to risk being rolled over rather than play dead.
Show: Oldest | Newest
26 Comments
Posted by SamTheCat, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 1:49 am Just as the Republicans stood firm on the issue of digging for more oil, and cannily got publicity and public support, so too they should stand firm-- and united-- on taxes, energy, and un-socialized health care. The defection of 40 House Republicans on the SCHIP vote-- a vote for a huge regressive tax, and paving for the good-intentioned path to Hillarycare isn't a good start.
Posted by debbieqd, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:47 am "Republicans would do well to avoid being maneuvered into the role of mindless oppositionists." Your good advice to your party may be too late. Have you beenwatching Mitch McConnell lately? Eric Cantor? The southern senators against the auto loans? They are entrenched in mindless opposition! Your advice is right-on, however. Our country is at its best when the issues are intelligently and calmly discussed on both sides. Unfortunately, your party hasn't had a new, innovative idea in years and we are living the result from that lack of thought. One cannot live by faith alone.
Posted by darryl becker, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 6:51 am It's sad, the problem isn't "Republicanism." It's "Know Nothingism" attitude led by the so-called Conservatives of talk radio. They have made a joke of a once proud party.--Darryl Becker--author of "All The President's Costumed Characters"
Posted by Eric Dondero, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 7:29 am That may be the role for conservatives, but we libertarians will fight Obama on 100% of his proposals. He is the complete opposite of a pro-liberty supporter. Obama is the closest individual in the history of the US to a genuine Socialist as President. If conservatives wish to wuss out, that's their decision. We libertarians will stand and fight, and fight we will, on everything. Something tells me it's the fighters who will benefit at the polls in 2010.
Posted by WM, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 9:41 am This article is foolishness. Pure suicide. It starts off recognizing the reality that the left must be opposed, then urges more of the same cooperation that Irving Kristol pedaled and which led to the trouble we are in today. What is needed is a new mental model, a way of thinking about the nature of opposition. To oppose means to oppose, not make loud noises and then give in at the last minute for "practical" reasons like we have been doing. How practical is it to be a permanent minority party? You have to understand that the stimulus package is inherently leftist, corrupt, and destructive. It does not matter if you tweak the tax policy or earmarks here or there or reduce the Keynesian spending somewhat. The overall package is a leftist one in and of itself. There is no way to make it consistent with free market principles because it is an abrogation of laissez faire in and of itself. It must therefore be opposed completely. If it gets passed, it should be done over the heads of the GOP and the left should have to own it and its horrendous results. There is no gain to be had over the long run by cooperating with the left to mitigate some of the damage of their programs. We must risk a little extra short-term pain for long-term gain. That is the only way to differentiate the party and save it over the long run. When will you people learn to start thinking in principles and the long term?
Posted by richtfan, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 9:44 am You've got to be kidding. "Action on climate change is essential"? Unless you've figured out a way to control sun spots and solar storms, there is NO action that any human can make that will either hurt or harm climate change. There is NO manmade effect on the earth's climate, and conservatives have to resist any and all attempts to regulate a free society in the name of "helping the planet". What a load of crap that is. There is NO mandate for universal health care. There is a mandate to change the system we already have, but I can only imagine the utter outrage when people start having their care rationed by the federal government. Now you're talking about a full scale revolution. Americans won't put up with it.
Posted by Voice of Reason, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 9:47 am Some of these plans may have some merit on their own, and where they do, Republicans can do themselves and the country a favor by seeing if it’s possible to work cooperatively. With action on health likely inevitable, it’s better that Republicans participate in the work to ensure a result that’s market-sensitive. Action on climate change and the environment is essential, so Republicans should promote nuclear power, the cheapest alternative to dirty coal, and should resist further subsidies to costly fantasies like wind and solar. But Republicans also should never forget that Obama is a Chicago pol. His plans will be larded with special favors and ripe for abuse. We already know where the worst will be. Chicago style, Obama will cram them into the one department to which he has named a Republican as cabinet secretary (the better to share the blame). Look for the Department of Transportation to be chock full of bridges to nowhere, roads to everywhere and hands out all around. In a similar vein, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the government’s $700-billion bailout engine, is an enigma wrapped in a mystery, dispensing billions in tax dollars on nobody knows what. Likewise, impending cap-and-trade plans to create carbon dioxide pollution permits will create billions in new money—which is essentially what emissions permits are—and distribute them to favored industries. So clearly, there will be a role in Obama’s Washington for an opposition party that protects taxpayers and exposes corruption. --------------------------------- the above post is where your article started sinking...from your audience point of view the GOP would do well to ignore your comment and focus their opposition on provide opposing ideas rather than just looking for things to expose... or risk being shoved out of Washington...completely
Posted by ottovbvs, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 9:55 am Frum is an astute political observer and he showed some guts in speaking up about the Palin idiocy, but he's married to a set of beliefs that are in the main either completely false or deeply flawed. He also makes his living by telling the conservative base what they want to hear though he knows that the conservative ideas he's married to have been rejected by the majority of the country. Thus he is thrown back upon the guilt by association maneuver. If you are a politician from Chicago you are a crook. It's a bit like old claim that if you were an Italian politician you were in the pocket of the mafia. True in some cases but not universal as Fiorella La Guardia demonstrated. Frum is of course totally correct in the danger of being maneuvered in a position of mindless obstructionism. The congressional leadership get this in the main which is why they are tamping down the rhetoric but many of their congressional followers and Republicans in the party machinery haven't got the memo. Neither have most of the pundits or think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute where Mr Frum himself perches. They are still cranking out oped pieces and good old slash and burn ideas as a brief perusal of venues like the WSJ ed page will rapidly confirm. And of course the conservative blogosphere remains certifiably off it's rocker as it continures to rant on about the birth certificates and the need to purge Rinos from the GOP. I'm afraid Mr Shrum made a better case for the current state of affairs than Frum does.
Post a Comment