I'm with Chotiner: The problem with contemporary American politics is that no one has ever proved William Kristol wrong. A lot of people don't like him for advising the 1993 Republican Congress to kill the Clinton health bill "sight unseen" because "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats... [and] at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.” But no one has ever proved him wrong. Indeed, the Republicans picked up more than 50 seats in the 1994 midterm elections. For the Republican Party, the incentives really do point towards obstruction.There are two caveats to that comment, though. The first is that it's based on the political atmosphere of the early-90s. It worked then. Bill Clinton was not, by 1994, a popular president. His administration was chaotic and beset by scandal. The NRA ginned up a genuinely effective populist insurrection in the midterm elections. There are good arguments that American voters were in a conservative phase. That might not prove true this time. Voters appears to be embracing an activist philosophy of government. Early polling suggests that obstruction is thus far pummeling the Republican brand. If the GOP sustains the strategy and loses 15 seats in the 2010 midterms, the incentives will change. But for now, this is the only working template they have for minority success, and it's not yet been disproven. The second is that what's good for parties is not necessarily good for individuals. This matters little in the House, where there's no such thing as individuals. It matters more in the Senate. As someone smartly said to me recently, no Republican senator was going to build a legacy voting for President Obama's stimulus plan. But a couple unexpected allies on health reform or energy could eventually find their names in the history books. Senators like the idea of getting their names on grand pieces of legislation. Everyone wants inclusion in the next edition of Profiles in Courage. The logic of Kristol makes sense for midterm elections, but not for long-term legacy. Minority senators, of course, want first and foremost to be majority senators, so if Obama appears weak, they may press the advantage. But if he seems strong, and the upcoming elections seem certain to sustain the status quo, individual glory might muscle out party unity. WHY SHOULD REPUBLICANS COOPERATE?
I'm with Chotiner: The problem with contemporary American politics is that no one has ever proved William Kristol wrong. A lot of people don't like him for advising the 1993 Republican Congress to kill the Clinton health bill "sight unseen" because "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats... [and] at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.” But no one has ever proved him wrong. Indeed, the Republicans picked up more than 50 seats in the 1994 midterm elections. For the Republican Party, the incentives really do point towards obstruction.There are two caveats to that comment, though. The first is that it's based on the political atmosphere of the early-90s. It worked then. Bill Clinton was not, by 1994, a popular president. His administration was chaotic and beset by scandal. The NRA ginned up a genuinely effective populist insurrection in the midterm elections. There are good arguments that American voters were in a conservative phase. That might not prove true this time. Voters appears to be embracing an activist philosophy of government. Early polling suggests that obstruction is thus far pummeling the Republican brand. If the GOP sustains the strategy and loses 15 seats in the 2010 midterms, the incentives will change. But for now, this is the only working template they have for minority success, and it's not yet been disproven. The second is that what's good for parties is not necessarily good for individuals. This matters little in the House, where there's no such thing as individuals. It matters more in the Senate. As someone smartly said to me recently, no Republican senator was going to build a legacy voting for President Obama's stimulus plan. But a couple unexpected allies on health reform or energy could eventually find their names in the history books. Senators like the idea of getting their names on grand pieces of legislation. Everyone wants inclusion in the next edition of Profiles in Courage. The logic of Kristol makes sense for midterm elections, but not for long-term legacy. Minority senators, of course, want first and foremost to be majority senators, so if Obama appears weak, they may press the advantage. But if he seems strong, and the upcoming elections seem certain to sustain the status quo, individual glory might muscle out party unity. 
