Now that Republicans have won complete control of Congress, you're going to hear a lot of arguments from Broderian commentators to the effect that after a midterm rebuke from the voters, what President Obama must do now is compromise, change the way he deals with Congress, and be less partisan. What you probably won't hear is a lot of detail, because as soon as you start to consider what those changes might mean, you realize how absurd it is.
In order to compromise, you need two sides who are both willing to give something up in order to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation. So tell me: what exactly will Republicans be willing to give up in order to get some of what they want? When they only controlled one house of Congress, the answer was "Nothing." Why will they be more open-minded when they control both houses?
For the last two years, Republicans have been telling their base, "Help us get the Senate back, and then we'll really stick it to Obama." Their means of doing so may be limited, but they will be under tremendous pressure to deliver something new to their supporters. One thing they will be able to do is simply refuse to confirm any of Obama's appointees. As Jonathan Chait wrote last week, "The contest to control the Senate is about one thing: whether Obama can confirm judges and staff his administration." Look forward to the stoppage of confirmations creating loads of good will on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Meanwhile, the demand for radical action from the House will be just as intense as ever, if not more so. "I have talked off the record to some aides to tea-party Republicans in the House," wrote Norm Ornstein, "who say that they are getting a lot of push from their activist voters to impeach the president."
Even if impeachment never happens, we should also keep in mind that the next Congress won't just be more Republican in sheer numbers, it's also going to move to the right within the GOP
. There were no moderate Republicans running this year. Just look at the class of new Republican senators. Joni Ernst believes that the United Nations is conspiring to take away Americans' property rights and forcibly move Iowans from rural areas into cities. Tom Cotton thinks ISIS has formed an alliance with Mexican drug gangs to attack us via our southern border. As speaker of the North Carolina house, Thom Tillis helped engineer a stampede to the right that included restrictions on voting and brutal cuts to education and social services. Does that sound like the kind of reasonable people with whom the White House can strike deals?
The incentives for them to continue fighting Obama on anything and everything are everywhere. The strategy of maximal obstruction got them where they are today. Twenty-four Republican senators will be up for re-election in 2016, and every last one will be looking over their right shoulder, worrying about a primary challenge and knowing that the only way to avoid it is to be as venomous as possible in their opposition to Obama. And next year's House will also become even more conservative than it is now, with the addition of a group of new Tea Partiers.
A Republican party in the flush of a sweeping victory isn't exactly going to be looking for areas where it can dial back its demands. If someone would like to explain how a GOP caucus in Congress even farther to the right than the one whose antics we currently enjoy would be more inclined to compromise with Barack Obama than it is now, I'm all ears. While you're at it, you could elaborate your thoughts on unicorn migration patterns and the location of the Tooth Fairy's home.
Ah, but won't Republicans be obligated to show they can govern, once they have power? Of course not. The incentives that have propelled them to their current heights of obstruction-the desire to subvert Obama's presidency, non-competitive districts that push them to the right, a base that equates compromise with betrayal-will remain unchanged. And they've been handsomely rewarded for it! Karl Rove can encourage them to act responsibly for the sake of their 2016 nominee, but they'll be no more inclined to listen than they are now.
Some Republicans have been saying for weeks that they're going to get serious in the next Congress. On the campaign trail, GOP candidates told people they should be elected so they can "get things done." But that's the last thing they want or will be able to deliver.
It'll be two more years of gridlock, two more years of meaningless Obamacare repeal votes, two more years of Benghazi
. Republicans may let a nominee or two pass by here and there, just to say they're not blocking literally everyone, but they'll stop the rest while warning darkly of radical leftists on the bench and in the administration. We'll talk about "grand bargains" on tax reform and Medicare spending, but the only bargaining coming from Congress will be the kind where they insist that the President accept all their demands. When their base begins to realize they haven't actually achieved anything, they'll say, "Don't worry, once we get the White House back we'll really start to roll."
Of course, they're unlikely to get the White House back, when an electorate that looks more like America comes to the polls in 2016. And so the pattern of Democratic victories in presidential years and Republican victories in midterms will continue, pulling us all along on an endless cycle of misery and despair. Democracy sure is something.
