An example of "obstructionist" would be a labor union that opposes everything management suggests out of hand. They just can't let management prevail in anything, even if the management suggestion is a good idea and would be helpful to their constituency. When they don't even listen, just dig in their heels, they're obstructing for the sake of obstructing, out of habit or out of maliciousness or whatever, not for the sake of defeating a particular proposal. Digging the heels in is one manifestation of obstructionism. A more constructive approach would be to argue the question or offer counter proposals. There is a special negativity attached to obstructionism because it is the epitome of non-constructive.
That's what I perceived from the R's during the health care debate. Overall, they chose not to offer counter proposals or debate the issues. Overall, they didn't even show concern for the underlying problems the legislation was intended to address (which is what left the negative impression that they applauded the status quo). They just dug in to stop the legislation and its proponents by whatever means necessary. Yes, I know, there were some ideas that came from the R's and there was some debate on the questions. Yes, I know that the D's made it all but unfeasible for the R's to co-operate. I have posted more than once that I thought the D's had them in a box where there really wasn't any benefit to bipartisanship and I'm not saying that it was a mistake so far as this particular legislation was concerned. Still, however justified the response, the overall thrust coming from the R's was to dig in and block with all their might, maybe even to the point of the uglier the better. That's what I saw and I found very unattractive. They came away looking ugly to me. Even had they won, it would have been an ugly win and that tarnish would remain unless they came back and offered a health care reform bill of their own. |
