The Ontology of Obstructionism
Ezra Klein has an interesting post today about the conceit of “philosophical differences” between the parties that was repeatedly trotted out at the healthcare summit on Thursday.
It’s true, of course, that there are some philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. But Republicans did something interesting yesterday: They turned a lot of policy differences into questions of first principles. And it’s harder to compromise on a first principle.
When [Rep. Eric] Cantor pointed out his philosophical differences, for instance, he was talking about how “the Secretary defines what a health benefit package should be.” That overstates the role the secretary of health and human services has in setting a floor for insurance in the exchanges, but nevertheless: When Republicans created health savings accounts, they had the government define what the package would be. And when they created the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, they had the government define what the package would be. And when Rep. Paul Ryan created his proposal, he set the minimum value of a benefit package. “You need to define what insurance is,” Ryan told me. “I agree with that.”
There seems to be a tripartite ontology at work here. There are philosophical differences, which deserve respect and which neither side should be expected to compromise. There are “legitimate” policy differences, which are respected but should be subject to reasonable compromise. And then there is low-down dirty politics. Spit.
The Republican strategy, abetted in good measure by President Obama, has been to take refuge in philosophical differences wherever possible, so as to avoid the appearance of being unwilling to compromise on a sensible middle-ground policy. Unwillingness to make policy compromises is tantamount to dishonorable partisanship. However, refusing to compromise one’s core beliefs is heroic and patriotic. So if you are the minority, and you don’t want to play along with the President’s program in a way that will advance the electoral interests of the President’s party, your best bet is to refuse to compromise on philosophical grounds. That way, we will all know to politely turn our heads when you resort to naked partisanship in pursuit of electoral advantage at the expense of the health and welfare of the nation.
Comments
One Response to “The Ontology of Obstructionism”
Leave a Reply
About Me
- I write this blog.
-
My twitter feed:
nice break down!