Effects Of Obstructionism

Opposing opinions, especially in politics, often feel like dissenting armies in a larger, moral battle. And while sometimes a fight is worthwhile, oftentimes both sides continue hostilities only because they seek to antagonize. In that manner, the Tea Party wave of 2010 was a sudden rise of far-right conservative voices designed to ultimately halt President Obama’s agenda; now, Democrats are embracing a policy of “resistance” on the grounds of a moral imperative to resist the Republican majority’s policies. While obstructionism may be a tool for minority voices to be heard, its adverse results, such as gridlock, partisanship, and public mistrust, ultimately render it unjustifiable as a political strategy.
A policy of obstructionism cannot rationalize
An obstructionist policy breaks the delicate nature of legislation itself, causing individuals to become disillusioned with the opposition party. President of the Florida Democratic Party Sally Boynton Brown reflects that “all those different checks and balances and why it takes so many steps for a law to become a law” are essential “to get to a place of compromise” (1-2). That the rule of law is necessary to ensure good legislation and discourse is contrary to how many individuals now see the function of government, which is constant gridlock. In frustration, they blame the opposition. Furthermore, Caplan of the New Yorker notes that some aspects of government are purposely not intended to be political, rather that “the Supreme Court is supposed to serve as the corrector and protector of the political branches” instead of being a political force itself (2). Playing partisan politics, especially with the Supreme Court, only drags an issue that should not be partisan into the political sphere, escalates partisanship, and slows down the ability of government to
Constituents seek to see change and productivity, and anything counter to that causes frustration. Harvard-educated Henry David Thoreau sees the instrument of government as being fickle, stating that “it has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will” (1). Since a single vote can change the course of the nation, government can be interpreted as weak. And as Caplan notes, voters respond best with their vote, as when “there are signs Democrats in Iowa and Washington will attempt to make Republicans’ refusal to vet a nominee an election-defining issue” (3). People have the largest voice with their vote and will use that to reflect their sentiments, gearing up the atmosphere for a political fight.
While obstructionism may be a tool for minority voices to be heard, its adverse results, such as gridlock, partisanship, and public mistrust, ultimately render it unjustifiable as a political strategy. If the Democrats are to take any strategy from the Republican’s lessons of the opposition party in power, it is that gridlock is not what drives the country forward. As humans, it is too easy to be able to simply ignore or disagree with others, but to productively drive forward together, all must cooperate and