You Won't Believe What Republicans Are Doing To Obstruct Congress
POLITICS 10/06/2039 10:15 PM ET
You Won't Believe What Republicans Are Doing To Obstruct Congress
by Liyah Armstrong

"Inverted color of GOP square social media logo, in disc form" by Republican National Committee, is in the public domain. | Writer image: CC0 1.0 Untitled by SeaMedia | Images were cropped. Images used for illustration purposes only. Image changes released under the same license as the original.
Republicans are becoming increasingly desperate.
A new phase is emerging in Congress, and it's threatening the very democracy we need right now.

I'm talking about the concept of hyper obstruction, which the Republicans are deploying to staggering effect to block as much legislation as they possibly can. Perhaps their goal is to advance a conservative agenda, or perhaps just to be as spiteful as they can while the Republic founders.

Republicans have held the White House only one term in the last eight, which clearly has the GOP more than a little rattled. But their inability to control the Oval Office has been matched by a signal failure to hold their precious majorities in Congress.

Their fortunes on Capitol Hill began declining in the late 20-teens, as liberals started the arduous process of clawing back seats one at a time from hardline conservatives across the nation. Buoyed by the introduction of Kaley's Law at the end of Hillary Clinton's second term in 2024, Democrats rode a wave of social change designed to protect minorities and expand a vision of an inclusive unsmoothed society.

Each victory (gender fluidity, transability, plural marriage, instant divorce) was stumped on by Democrats from St Petersburg to Anchorage, and each victory pushed traditional republican mores just a little further from the public's imagination.

And every issue left bodies in its wake as Republicans stuck to their tried and tested strategy of demonizing people who wanted a little more liberty and a lot less government in their lives. The irony.

Democrats gained a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate the night President Stader was elected in 2028, and a simple majority in the House 4 years later when Americans voted to give him a second term.

Neither chamber shows signs of hosting a Republican majority anytime soon, because Democrats have learned to take the people's side and stick with it. They listen.

But since the turn of the decade the GOP has morphed into an even more partisan version of itself. Gone are the days of President Ryan pushing for instant divorce and plural marriage or Minority Leader Campbell pressing passionately for the legalization of the intimacy market.

Instead what we now have is a Republican Party almost solely devoted to avoiding governance of any sort and instead obstructing everything the Democratic Party tries to do.

Since the early 30's, when it became obvious President Stader was going to win a second term, Republicans have:

  • sought to add amendments to over 70% of all bills;
  • required all amendments to be read aloud in the Senate
  • absented themselves from committees in order to stall legislation
  • shut down committees when the Senate has been in session for two hours (the Minority Leader has to agree in order to override this)
  • forced time-consuming roll call votes in the Senate
  • raised meaningless points of order, in order to stall debate
  • rekindled "Calendar Wednesday" in the House, forcing debate over trivia

You get the idea.

The filibuster represents perhaps the most stubborn gridlock tactic, but with its supermajority the Democratic Party can shut it down. However, liberals have learned to be just as stubborn and creative as the GOP. When Rep. Fred Teunenberg (R-WY) attempted to filibuster 2035's tobacco supertax bill (rumors said he was trying to make a statement), Democrats simply let him have at it.

19 hours later, the 74 year-old, having reportedly lost bladder control more than once, was taken to hospital after collapsing.

The only real option left for the GOP to pass or even influence legislation is by doing deals with crotchety House Democrat Camm Raymond-Byrne and his Southern caucus. Raymond-Byrne is known to be a firebrand who leans toward the moderate side of progressive politics, and sometimes an uneasy alliance with the GOP has brought back more than he had to give out.

In 2036, Raymond-Byrne helped defeat H.R. 118, which would have required federal government departments to hire a minimum average of 2 CoUNTA identities per employee within 2 years. But Minority Leader Ken Buchardt was forced to agree to an increase in Sovereign Black Neighborhood funding and agree to fund a study on the feasability of a Sovereign Latin Neighborhood, which surely was a bitter pill to swallow.

Thus, the modern GOP is reduced to either desperately trying to engineer partisan gridlock, or desperately trading lower priorities for higher ones.

But something new and darker has begun to occur within the ranks of conservative lawmakers. During discussions with both House and Senate Democrats over the past months I'm hearing more and more references to Republicans openly talking of "schism".

As in, "You need to round up some votes for this bill...or it could lead to 'schism' down the road."

What does that mean? My sources can't pin down their Republican colleagues for elaboration. But Democrats aren't being bluffed by ominous references to "schisms".

However, there are a very limited number of options as to what Republicans mean. Either secession, or some kind of civil conflict. There are no other practical ways to interpret that.

So in other words, Republicans have become so enfeebled, so desperate, so completely without hope for their agenda, that they are threatening a civil war.

The implications of this are enormous. I'm still trying to ascertain the President's level of knowledge of this, and where the House and Senate Majority Leaders stand in relation to the threat of, well, treason from the GOP.

One thing is for certain though: a number of independent Democratic sources have each mentioned Republican usage of the word "schism" to upscale their threat. Which is more than a coincidence. This means that the threat of civil war has been escalated to a party policy.

A wounded tiger, they say, is more dangerous.

We may be about to see if the same is true of elephants.
What's Hot