After winning a very confused election, what then?

George Packer, writing in the November 24, 2014 issue of The New Yorker paints a picture of the Repubilcan Party, now having won big in the election, that reminds me of the question about the dog chasing a car:    What does he plan to do if he catches it?

Packer notes the paradoxical outcome:

" . . . The Party that has spent the past six years doing everything in its power to prevent the President from stimulating growth, boosting wages, improving infrastructure, controlling health-care costs, and regulating Wall Street was rewarded with clear majorities in both houses. The only prize left is the big one in 2016.

"Republican leaders, determined to prove that they can build as well as destroy, have made a mighty effort not to seem high on victory. . . .  Cory Gardner, the Senator-elect from Colorado, warned, 'If Republicans don’t prove that we can govern with maturity, that we can govern with competence, we’ll see the same kind of results two years from now, except it will be a wave going back a different direction.'

"There are reasons to be skeptical that the Party has really turned a corner on its chronic obstructionism. Within ten days of the election, McConnell was sounding like himself again. After China and the United States announced common goals for reducing greenhouse gases, he accused Obama of sending 'a signal that he has no intention of moving toward the middle' . . . .  The House Speaker, John Boehner, concurred: 'The President intends to double down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact' . . . ."

Packer then points out that the next chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee will likely be James Inhofe (R-OK) who has called global warming a "hoax."   Ted Cruz (R-TX) is in line to head the subcommittee on Science and Space.   Packer concludes that they are "determined to prevent or undo any executive action by Obama on greenhouse gases, as well as on immigration reform."

". . . Most of these proposals are marginal enough to betray a tactical mind-set: the purpose is not to address important issues but to corner the President with bipartisan votes and improve the G.O.P.’s image ahead of 2016.

"In a post-election editorial, the conservative National Review dismissed the whole idea that congressional Republicans need to mature, arguing that the “desire to prove Republicans can govern” will only divide the Party between its establishment and its extremists, play into the hands of opponents in the Democratic Party and the media, and perhaps even persuade voters to keep government divided by electing a Democratic President in 2016. The editorial urged the Republican leadership to dedicate itself to one goal: winning the White House . . . . You can hear the voice of the Party’s enablers: why sober up now that the bad behavior is paying off? . . .

"[It] doesn’t mean that the Party has moved toward the center. Instead, it has learned how to muffle its extremism. . . .  But building a Republican Party that can entertain ideas and pass laws with far-reaching answers to the country’s problems is harder than winning an election. It might even take losing another one."

The dog has caught the car . . . . Now what is it going to do with it?

Ralph