I’m gobsmacked seeing people online defending the Republican Party’s tactics in this shutdown crisis. People are actually defending the GOP for pushing the country to a government shutdown and risking the first default in the history of our economy. They are saying that Obama’s at fault for not “compromising“.
So, let’s imagine the shoe were on the other foot.
Imagine the parties were reversed in what they controlled, and the most liberal wing of the Democratically-controlled House insisted that the government needs to institute Single-Provider healthcare (like Britain’s NHS). They tried to get what they wanted through legislation and failed. They tried to get the Supreme Court to give them what they wanted and failed. They tried to do well enough in elections to get what they want, but the electorate re-elected the GOP President, Senate, and even gave the GOP more votes in the House (but gerrymandering and other effects kept it in the Democrats’ hands).
The Democrats would have failed to have achieved their goals legislatively, judicially, and electorally. They would have failed to advance their goals in all the means the Constitution made available to them.
So, they publicly planned for a year to shut down government and risk a USA credit default until the GOP Senate and President gave them truly Socialist healthcare system. When the time came, they shut down government and tried to blame the GOP, saying that all the GOP has to do was enact the policies the Democrats were not able to achieve through normal means. They demanded that they get what they want, even though the President, the Senate, and even the majority of the House (if you combined moderate Democrats with the Republicans) didn’t agree.
Would you agree with them? Would you say that the GOP were being petulant children for not giving in? Or would you say that the liberal Democrats were being unreasonable and undemocratic and were taking the country hostage?
Would you be defending the Democrats’ tactics if the roles were reversed? Do you really think that this is a good and constitutional way for policy to be set?