WASHINGTON — The effort to defund Obamacare, culminating in Sen. Ted Cruzs marathon speech on the Senate floor, has been symbolic in ways its sponsors did not intend.
By MICHAEL GERSON
The Washington Post
This, in the end, was the strategy: For procedural reasons, senators needed to vote against a House spending bill defunding Obamacare in order to force a government shutdown, in order to cut off federal spending unrelated to Obamacare, in order to trigger a wave of public revulsion against Obamacare, in order to force President Barack Obama to trade away his signature legislative accomplishment. And any elected Republican, by the way, who questions the practicality of this approach is a quisling.
It is the fullest expression (so far) of the view of leadership held by the new, anti-establishment, conservative establishment: Exploit a legitimate populist cause to demand a counterproductive tactic in an insufferable tone, then use the inevitable failure to discredit opponents in an intra-party struggle.
In the process, the GOP is made to look unserious and incapable of governing. But that is beside the point. The advocates of defunding have bigger ideological fish to fry. They argue that, over the decades, Republican compromisers have been complicit in producing a federal government so overgrown that our constitutional order has collapsed beneath it.
In this case, the evidence of GOP compromise is not the acceptance of Obamacare. The real target is the idea of compromise itself, along with all who deal, settle or blink.
In the middle of this unfolding Republican debate comes a timely National Affairs article by Jonathan Rauch. It is titled Rescuing Compromise, but it might well have been called James Madison for Dummies.
Rauch argues that Madison had two purposes in mind as he designed the Constitution. The first was to set faction against faction as a brake on change and ambition a role that tea party leaders have fully embraced. Madisons second purpose, however, was to build constant adjustment into the system itself, by requiring constant negotiation among shifting constellations of actors.
Following the Articles of Confederation, Americas founders wanted a more energetic government. But they made action contingent upon bargaining among the branches of government and within them. Compromise, then, is not merely a necessary evil, argues Rauch, it is a positive good, a balance wheel that keeps government moving forward instead of toppling.
Compromise, of course, can have good or bad outcomes. But an ideological opposition to the idea of compromise removes an essential cog in the machinery of the constitutional order.
At the end of the day, says Rauch, the Madisonian framework asks not that participants like compromising but that they do it and, above all, that they recognize the legitimacy of a system that makes them do it.
We are seeing that an anti-compromise ideology can make for bad politics. In our system, Obamacare will not be overturned by one house of Congress. A tea-party shutdown strategy if implemented would make securing the other house and the presidency less likely for Republicans.
It is a revealing irony that the harshest critics of compromise should call themselves constitutional conservatives.
The Constitution itself resulted from an extraordinary series of compromises. And it created the system of government that presupposes the same spirit.
Compromise, says Rauch, is the most essential principle of our constitutional system. Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics; they deserve, in general, respect for their willingness to constructively advance their ideals, not condemnation for treachery.
But such condemnation, it seems, is an easier path to attention.
To reach Michael Gerson, send email to email@example.com.