WurfWhile

In my first WurfWhile.com blog post in 2004 I looked at the “competitive advantage” that Republicans traditionally have over Democrats in governing:

“‘Conservatives’ tend to believe in little and slow change - people are best left alone, and government can do little to help them. This makes governing a lot easier. You don’t need to deliver much to be perceived as a success - and the hardest problems, those involving people, are largely insolvable. ‘Liberals’ on the other hand, are advocates of change and believe in improvement through governing, especially human improvement - a tougher goal to measure up against. The structural advantage I thought Republicans enjoyed came from believing them to be conservative. Likewise, the structural disadvantage that I thought Democrats suffered from came from believing them to be liberal….”

Now that the Republican activist (reactionary) program is stalled, because Americans voted to reject it, Republican senate members appear to be going back to doing less or even nothing. Traditionally low political expectations plus mainstream media bias will likely provide some cover for Republicans, even as Senate Republicans take obstructionism to historic levels (actually on pace to double the historic high).

I thought of my first post when reading a recent Political Animal where Kevin complains about the minimal press coverage about Republicans blocking votes in the U.S. Senate and obstructing legislation. Given the press’ belief that Republicans traditionally believe in little government, not letting government ‘move’ reinforces the ‘brand’ and not being “new” makes it seem less newsworthy.

I also thought of this post when Kevin criticizes Mike Huckabee as a “Village Idiot” who will

“get the village idiot treatment that Republicans since Ronald Reagan have so often gotten, where they’re sort of expected to say harebrained stuff and nobody holds it against them? After all, this has nothing to do with Huckabee’s hair, his cleavage, or his middle name, only with the fact that he displays an almost comical, grade-school ignorance of even the bare basics of national energy policy. And who cares about that in a president of the United States?”

This is not quite the same (there’s no excuse for the hair, cleavage or middle name coverage) but it does fit into the idea that you don’t need to be particularly smart to be a Republican President of the United States (see current field). After all, you’re not expected to do much and, thanks to President Bush active disasters, it’s probably true that more people would be happier if Republican presidents did do less. Heck, a lack of understanding might even help Republican presidents - as long as the basic commitment to do nothing is kept. Reality is of limited concern.