Why are Republicans so bad at governing?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It seems like the democrats are the party controlling congress right now.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Because deep down, they don't want to govern. Look at the Preamble:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans want to be a ruling faction, not represent the general public. Republicans celebrate the rebels in our Civil War. They support a financially precarious, mentally and physically ill, heavily armed populace broken up into factions. They want to wage war in foreign states for special interests. (Not that the GOP is alone in that.) They want to use the government as a wedge and lever for the benefit of their own interests, not those of the general public. And they're for Liberty for themselves, and only as long as it doesn't interfere with their authoritarian theocracy.

The Republicans are opposed to nearly every idea this country was founded on. Of course they're bad at making it run.

[Frodo]

That someone who doesn't believe government (especially at the federal level) has a positive role to play in our lives would turn out to be so poor at governing should surprise no one.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In large part is the combination of purist implementation of "Conservative" (Libertarian) economic policy, and on the other hand, the influence of special interests on the more moderate faction.

[America Needs R'hllor]

In large part is the combination of purist implementation of "Conservative" (Libertarian) economic policy, and on the other hand, the influence of special interests on the more moderate faction.

Yeah, pretty much this. It's also why Republican Presidents in recent years have been that much less competent than Democrats. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton lead the U.S. into a fairly stable, prosperous era while Geroge W. Bush and Donald Trump kept/keep flopping on almost every issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In large part is the combination of purist implementation of "Conservative" (Libertarian) economic policy, and on the other hand, the influence of special interests on the more moderate faction.

Yeah, pretty much this. It's also why Republican Presidents in recent years have been that much less competent than Democrats. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton lead the U.S. into a fairly stable, prosperous era while Geroge W. Bush and Donald Trump kept/keep flopping on almost every issue.

A great example of this in action was the Alaska Senate Election in 2010. You can vote for the nepotist, who was appointed to the seat by her father and is bought and paid for big oil, construction and other special interests or a far right extremist.

There is no middle ground, there is no "good gov't wing" of the GOP.

[HAnnA MArin County]

In large part is the combination of purist implementation of "Conservative" (Libertarian) economic policy, and on the other hand, the influence of special interests on the more moderate faction.

Yeah, pretty much this. It's also why Republican Presidents in recent years have been that much less competent than Democrats. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton lead the U.S. into a fairly stable, prosperous era while Geroge W. Bush and Donald Trump kept/keep flopping on almost every issue.

A great example of this in action was the Alaska Senate Election in 2010. You can vote for the nepotist, who was appointed to the seat by her father and is bought and paid for big oil, construction and other special interests or a far right extremist.

There is no middle ground, there is no "good gov't wing" of the GOP.

Wow people are still upset about that? I don't think there's many people out there who would have preferred a Senator Sarah Palin (lmao) over a Senator Lisa Murkowski seeing what a moronic embarrassment the former has become to the good people of Alaska.

To the OP: Republicans are bad at governing because they hate the government, which takes too much money from them and their rich buddies (I mean, the "job creators") and gives it to all those leeches and takers and welfare queens. Republicans only want the government when it comes to controlling what women do with their own bodies and what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They seem to want to use the government to only make the lives of those people who don't vote for them (basically anyone who's not a super-rich old heterosexual WASP Christian male) as miserable as possible. But "family values" and playing the Jesus card enables them to disguise their true motives and intentions.

[136or142]

In large part is the combination of purist implementation of "Conservative" (Libertarian) economic policy, and on the other hand, the influence of special interests on the more moderate faction.

Yeah, pretty much this. It's also why Republican Presidents in recent years have been that much less competent than Democrats. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton lead the U.S. into a fairly stable, prosperous era while Geroge W. Bush and Donald Trump kept/keep flopping on almost every issue.

A great example of this in action was the Alaska Senate Election in 2010. You can vote for the nepotist, who was appointed to the seat by her father and is bought and paid for big oil, construction and other special interests or a far right extremist.

There is no middle ground, there is no "good gov't wing" of the GOP.

Wow people are still upset about that? I don't think there's many people out there who would have preferred a Senator Sarah Palin (lmao) over a Senator Lisa Murkowski seeing what a moronic embarrassment the former has become to the good people of Alaska.

To the OP: Republicans are bad at governing because they hate the government, which takes too much money from them and their rich buddies (I mean, the "job creators") and gives it to all those leeches and takers and welfare queens. Republicans only want the government when it comes to controlling what women do with their own bodies and what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They seem to want to use the government to only make the lives of those people who don't vote for them (basically anyone who's not a super-rich old heterosexual WASP Christian male) as miserable as possible. But "family values" and playing the Jesus card enables them to disguise their true motives and intentions.

For what it's worth, it was Joe Miller who was the the 'far right extremist' in 2010, not Sarah Palin.  Miller was also the Republican nominee as Lisa Murkowski won as a write in candidate (with a good deal of support from Democrats.)

[pbrower2a]

Republicans are more likely to be blind followers of tycoons, financiers, and religious extremists. Such people have their own internal divisions or turf wars.

[136or142]

I add to what has been said that actual public policy making requires knowledge and expertise and those are things that Republicans are increasingly contemptuous of.

For instance, you have the so-called House Freedom Caucus that makes up around 1/8 of the Republican House delegation (I think 29 of 241 members) that publicly professes that it has no interest in legislating but is only interested in blocking legislation.

A Republican House member also can't just join the 'Freedom Caucus' but has to be voted in, so there are undoubtedly many other Congressional Republicans who share a great deal of this sentiment but aren't regarded as totally pure.

Governing also requires a willingness to compromise and a willingness to acknowledge that legislating involves choosing among a limited array of imperfect options.  Many Republicans these days don't want to acknowledge that reality.

I think President Trump summed up the attitude of many Republicans on that (the voters in this case if not the legislators, but Republican legislators still have to pander to this constituency more or less) when he said that he wanted an Obamacare replacement that was 'more comprehensive and covered more people but also cost less.'

In the case of health care, it may be possible that some form of universal coverage could actually achieve that to some extent (though only by limiting access by some people or in some way), but then you have the problem of Republicans worshipping their ideology over solving practical problems to the best extent possible.

[MasterJedi]

Not that hard to figure out, when you run on massive tax cuts and keep cutting taxes you have no money to do anything else that needs to be done and then the rest fall apart from there. The free market fairies aren't going to give you money for roads/schools/etc.

[136or142]

I don't think this is just about tax cuts because this doesn't seem to be just a problem with American conservatives, but a problem with modern conservatism, at least in the English speaking countries.

Here in Canada, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper didn't cut taxes to anywhere near the degree that the Republicans in the United States have, but I think that was mainly because he wanted his government branded as 'populist working class conservatism' and not the conservatism for the 'haves and have mores.'  So, while he cut taxes he, unlike U.S most Republicans, was concerned about debts and deficits.

And yet, while his government certainly did actually govern some of the time, a good deal of the time, they also, for instance, deliberately passed legislation that they knew was unconstitutional just so that it would be struck down so that they would have something to rail against.  ("Those activist liberal judges!")


There certainly is something about modern conservatism, and not just in the U.S, that makes it ideology that is unfit to govern.  A large part of it I think stems from the need of so many conservatives to be OUTRAGED! about.

This is in addition to everything that I've written earlier, none of which, which the exception of the House 'Freedom Caucus' that is strictly an American thing.

[Koharu]

Not that hard to figure out, when you run on massive tax cuts and keep cutting taxes you have no money to do anything else that needs to be done and then the rest fall apart from there. The free market fairies aren't going to give you money for roads/schools/etc.

Cutting taxes and raising spending for defense. Ugh.

[mvd10]

Small majorities and an annoying group of ideological purists are the main causes. But wasn't Bush quite competent at pushing his agenda through (except partial SS privatization, but I doubt anyone could have done that).

[Nyvin]

Small majorities and an annoying group of ideological purists are the main causes. But wasn't Bush quite competent at pushing his agenda through (except partial SS privatization, but I doubt anyone could have done that).

Bush got legislation through (which is more than we can say about Trump so far...),  but his legislation largely was terrible.

[MasterJedi]

Not that hard to figure out, when you run on massive tax cuts and keep cutting taxes you have no money to do anything else that needs to be done and then the rest fall apart from there. The free market fairies aren't going to give you money for roads/schools/etc.

At least in Milwaukee it has devolved in to:

1. Cut taxes
2. Only spend money on roads and cops
3. Use control to destroy Milwaukee/local control is only good if you're conservative.

[Virginiá]

Why are the democrats? Maybe it has something to do with being stuck in a corrupt two party system more engaged in winning elections and attacking the other party instead of actually caring about anyone else besides the tools and pawns they call their constituents.

Part of the reason they only ever seem to care like winning is because America has been closely divided for about a generation now. When both parties see they have a good shot at winning control, they devote more time and energy to politicizing the process and trying to one-up the opposition at every turn. If one party could finally establish clear legislative dominance over the other, things would settle down as the loser party accepts the situation.

Obviously, another part of the reason is that this is politics, and politicians will always play tricks and vie for power, but it's not as bad when the country is less polarized and one party has a clear hold on the federal government.

[Badger]

That someone who doesn't believe government (especially at the federal level) has a positive role to play in our lives would turn out to be so poor at governing should surprise no one.  

This in a nutshell. How big is ample was W nominating his old buddy brownie for head of FEMA. The guy had literally no other qualifications and having been W's college roommate. His last job had been, I kid you not, president of the American Quarter Horse Association. And he even got fired from that job before W hooked him up with FEMA. How the hell he ever passed the Senate confirmation is beyond me

But hey, if all federal government agencies are just bloated bureaucracies it don't do anything except safe and good hard-working fellow millionaire tax money, then hey, at least one can provide a cushy job for one's crony and some of their friends. Besides, it's not like any of those your Oxys really do anything and the leadership of them actually matters in day-to-day life.

And then Katrina came, but the number of Republicans leaders who were actually convinced otherwise of this Theory, you could count on one hand.

[Sir Mohamed]

The main reasons are:

- Small congressional majorities
- Large ideological divisions within the GOP (what makes #1 even more troubling)
- Pure ideologists cause gridlock; pragmatists are afraid to get primaried if they moderate or work across the aisle
- An administration that is unable to take the lead and unite congressional GOPers
- GOP spent past years on "opposing Obama" rather than developing own concepts that appeal to all or most factions within the party. Obamacare is a prime example.
- Populist promises made as opposition party that are hard or impossible to keep

[Santander]

Bill Maher - Ronald Reagan Was the Original Teabagger

[All Along The Watchtower]

This question assumes that the US federal government is structurally suited to effective and productive governance and ambitious policymaking, or that it wasn't deliberately designed not to be suited for that.

Read what Madison had to say about political factions and the "tyranny of the majority", etc.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Previous republican presidents got things done, we may not have liked what they did, but they still did stuff. I would argue the problem nowadays is a function of McConnell's extreme unpopularity, the existence of the freedom caucus, and Trump's lack of government experience all combining to create newfound disaster.

[Virginiá]

Previous republican presidents got things done, we may not have liked what they did, but they still did stuff. I would argue the problem nowadays is a function of McConnell's extreme unpopularity, the existence of the freedom caucus, and Trump's lack of government experience all combining to create newfound disaster.

I don't think McConnell's popularity is really an issue here. I think the tactics he has used since becoming Majority Leader have definitely compounded their governing issues, though. That wouldn't be the same thing.

It's also possible that Republicans never were truly able to govern in a sustaining manner. Sure, it worked for a while after they took back Congress, but if you get power than use it in all the wrong ways, eventually it breaks down. Just like a new car will run for some time, but eventually a lack of basic maintenance will cause it to break down. Given how long Republicans were in the Congressional minority, and probably how eager they were not to end up back there, along with increasing polarization in the electorate (of which they probably sped up with their actions), it's a plausible idea.

[PragmaticPopulist]

While some good points have been made in this thread, there's one big one that I haven't seen.

I think it's because most of the Republican base is at odds with their elected officials. Elected officials are mainly driven by wonky fiscal conservatism. The GOP base is more interested in culture wars, (ie: nationalist views on immigration, identity, etc). The problem is that GOP candidates have played to that nationalist sentiment for a long time, and when they get elected, they don't follow through because the electorate at-large hates what a majority of Republicans favor. This was in the NYT a few days ago, and it pretty much explains it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/opinion/trump-republicans.html?smid=tw-share

[pbrower2a]

They want government to fail so that they can leave everything to the most rapacious heels. For them profit and what it can buy are the sole virtues for the elites, and helpless and obedient servitude is the virtue for the rest.