That is really not true given the full history of things. Most Republicans were very willing to compromise after Obama first took office, but he elected to completely ignore them instead since he had a super majority. At that point the only thing they had left to do was to be obstructionist, and I'm sure he was very aware of the potential political consequences of jamming legislation through in the beginning of his administration. In my opinion, the attempts at being bipartisan later were just political showmanship. Similar to how the Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare repeatedly even though they knew it would be vetoed. There was a lot of legislation that was voted on only because the knew it would get vetoed

I think we must have lived in two different countries following Obama's election.

The financial world was crumbling, and both parties recognized that drastic economic action was required.

Later, when Obama undertook healthcare reform - a project he had won both EC and popular support for - Republicans initially supported him. The Tea Party and the coming midterm elections pulled them to the right, and their success in 2010 left us with the obstructionism that we continue to see.

Related to the 'political showmanship' - if you recall the Boehner-Obama negotiations, I could hardly characterize that as showmanship. Representative Boehner risked his position as leader to try to demonstrate Republican cooperation but was ultimately drawn back by his party.

Overall, I read your comment as one that is supporting the 'Republican party line' without the context of following the events occurring during the Obama presidency. I would be keen to read any evidence you have in contradiction to the points I have raised.

[1] Here's an article describing the orchestrated obstructionism from the lens of 2012:

   - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html

[2] First, I should say that the individual mandate in Obamacare is fundamentally a 'Republican' (vs conservative) idea, having been implemented in Massachusetts and appeared in 'Republican'-leaning journals.

Second, there was Republican support for the ACA. You'll say 'no one' voted for the bill but the bill's signing was delayed as additions were continually made to appease Republicans who were on, the fence but eventually decided not to vote for the ACA. One Republican Representative did support the bill after it was clear it would pass. Indeed, there had been bipartisan efforts to create an ACA-like bill before the Tea Party pulled the Republicans to the right; see the third link.

   - http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health-bill-earns-one-republican-vote/

   - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml [See Rep. A J Cao's vote]

   - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/12/george-will/george-will-pegs-sen-bennetts-loss-votes-tarp-stim/

Weren't those negotiations with Boehner mainly just intended to avoid sequester? That's a fairly unusual situation. Outside of that I don't recall anything, but I may have just not paid enough attention.

As for the party moving right, that's basically what I was referring to. Having been excluded from negotiations on legislation early on, with the stimulus bill and such, the Republicans became a unified opposition when many were initially willing and politically able to compromise. This is what made room for the tea party in 2010, which has been a big obstacle for them afterwards in my opinion. It's all sort of a lose-lose situation.

I don't have much time to look up references at the moment, but the TARP and other stimulus-related bills enjoyed bipartisan support.

I still disagree with your second assertion. The Tea Party forcing the Republicans to the right happened outside Washington and didn't seem directly related to anything Obama or the Democrats had done.

About the Boehner-Obama moment: while (if I recall correctly) it ultimately led to another budget, in the thick of their negotiations, they would have changed tax law as well. [1] I agree that there are fewer easily memorable moments of bipartisanship after 2010 but I do not agree that the Democratic supermajority (which really only lasted a year, due to Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts) played an important role in promoting obstructionism.

Rather, the Tea Party and the ACA fight provided cover for the Republican leadership to do what they had already been planning (see the Washington Post link from above for an unattributed source who claims the same).

   1. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/07/11/137760498/grand-bargain-budget-deal-elusive

EDIT:

I was incorrect about the reason the Boehner-Obama negotiations began - it was the federal borrowing limit [2]. Reports at the time, and since, suggested that this fight was totally unnecessary, as the all expenditures accounted for by the borrowing limit would already have been approved by Congress.

    2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debt-reduction-talks-in-limbo-as-clock-ticks-toward-aug-2-deadline/2011/07/10/gIQAOeXt7H_story.html

> since he had a super majority.

That doesn't explain the other 6 years pure obstruction.

It sort of does. Having been pushed out of negotiations around things like the stimulus bill they ended up as a unified opposition, which resulted in the "tea party" and the party moving drastically to the right

> ... in game theory when the other side always defects.

Consider the conservative position, and what strategy would work for conserving what is important to them. Any sort of compromise is a long term losing strategy, so of course they'll block progressive moves if they're capable. I'm not aware of any real trade ever being offered, something like: we want full on no joke equality of outcome for every flavor of the rainbow, and in exchange we'll give you the abolition of federal income tax.

Imagine if someone demanded you eat a sandwich made of human waste, and then they got upset when you refused to compromise and only eat half of it.

The human waste metaphor raises an interesting question - what do you think the role of elected officials in a representative democracy is?

I would also add that the media-portrayal of conservative perspectives if in multiple instances further to the right than that of the electorate. I'm happy to go into examples if you care (one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats).

> one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats

The ACA is not "health care." It's an insurance regulation. The conflating of the two is a useful narrative but it is not accurate in any way.

I don't see how this is a useful distinction, but am open to your input.

In the pre-ACA insurance marketplace, pre-existing conditions either precluded individuals from coverage or forced them to pay for more expensive plans. Self-employed individuals were in a similar position.

Without insurance, health care, ranging from the mundane to emergency room coverage, was/is exorbitantly expensive. What rhetorical clarity, then, do we gain by explaining that the ACA is not health care?

The role of the elected is to carry out the will of the governed except in cases where it is the will of a tyrannical majority. I think that has been demonstrated to not work, unless your measure of success is counted by generations and not years.

I don't agree with you on the media-portrayal point, because I think your premise is way off. There is no unified conservative perspective in the way that there is with progressives. This last election has made it very clear that the old conservative guard, the ones most similar to progressives, who called for universal healthcare before Obama, are in a minority position.

I'm not likely to be the one you want to discuss this with though, as I'm an anarchist.