Political Insanity Is Catching

Liberals have gone around the bend.  Ever since Hillary lost the presidential election to Trump, they have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  Their unhappiness is understandable, but the level of their irrationality requires explanation.

Political parties have had setbacks before; nevertheless most sought not to compound their problems.  Now, the Democrats have decided, among other things, to prevent the new chief executive from assembling his team.  They know that Trump will eventually fill the positions he needs, but they have determined to prevent this is long as possible.

Why?  What have they to gain?  They are also obstructing the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.  Here too they know they cannot stop him taking a seat, but they are vilifying him anyway.  As they readily admit, this is tit-for-tat given how Merrick Garland’s nomination to the court was treated.

Then there was Nancy Pelosi’s response when Trump’s health care bill was withdrawn from a vote in the House of Representatives.  She stood before the cameras and gloated that this was a “rookie mistake.”  More than that, her sh*t-eating grin was unmistakable.

Most boys learn, when playing sports in their younger years, that it is a bad idea to antagonize those who have been defeated.  Getting into their faces and rubbing in their embarrassment is a formula for later trouble.  People who have been humiliated are motivated to get even.

The same applies to politics.  In politics there are also winners and losers.  And here too the losers hate having been beaten.  This is why successful politicians learn to suppress their glee.  In most cases, especially in democracies, they discover that it is wise to throw vanquished opponents a bone.  Doing so enables them to salvage a shred of dignity.

Part of the genius of the American political system is that it has fostered compromise.  The participants make boasts, and posture for reporters, but then in a back room come to an agreement both sides can live with.  Twenty present of a loaf is usually better than none.

The Democrats current scorched earth policy invites retaliatory intransigence.  Just as Harry Reid’s resorting to the nuclear option to force through his party’s nominees opened the door for Republicans to do the same, so does non-stop obstruction of presidential initiatives.

That this is a counter-productive strategy should have been obvious to all concerned.  Seasoned liberal politicians ought to have recognized its implications.  But so should their conservative foes.  The last thing the latter ought do is emulate the imprudence of self-destructing adversaries.

But evidently political insanity is catching.  In fighting to get everything they wanted in the American Health Care Act, some conservatives behaved like spoiled children.  Not unlike their Democratic role models, they threw a tantrum that is apt to get them less than they desired—or the country needs.

There can be no doubt that Trump sought to bargain with the extreme right wing of his party.  He made accommodation after accommodation.  None of these, however, was sufficient.  The other side wanted it all, so they got nothing.  The repeal and replace of ObamaCare was withdrawn, perhaps not to reappear.

Yet the conservative holdouts say: never mind.  We will just go back to the drawing board and introduce new legislation.  But what makes them think that those who opposed them this time will suddenly roll over and play dead.  If a better deal was unavailable now; why months from now?

In the meantime, they have not made friends.  Whatever Trump says, I am sure he will remember who gave him his first great legislative defeat.  Politicians do not enhance their power by kicking their erstwhile allies in the groin.

Nor have members of the Freedom Caucus done the nation a favor.  They say they want to lower health care costs for their constituents, but they have a funny way of showing it.  Perpetuating ObamaCare for another year is sure to inflict billions in costs on vulnerable Americans.

So what was the point of this exercise?  If the AHCA was imperfect—as it was—why makes things worse?  Why couldn’t the legislation have been repaired in subsequent bills?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University