Why are Republicans so bad at governing?

[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.)

[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.

[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.