The Republicans

A dangerous game

Despite becoming more extremist and obstructionist, the Republicans triumphed in the mid-term elections. Next time round, they may be in for a shock

See article

Readers' comments




President Obama's only major sin as President has been to assume that he was dealing with rational human beings in the other party. I think the last several years (and particularly the past few weeks when the idea of letting a patient without health insurance die drew vigorous cheers at debate) admirably demonstrates that many Republicans are only tenuously linked to the rest of homo sapiens. I respectfully suggest that many in what used to be the "Grand Old Party" might benefit from a few weeks in scenic Somalia--a country that has the level of functioning government these folks seem to prefer.


A couple things:

1 - Mr. Obama's "bad luck" was largely engineered by the Republican party. Who knows how the well the country would be doing right now if the republicans actually supported him rather than making his presidency a failure as their top priority.

2 - The Tea is not a self-organized organization. Maybe it appears that way from across the Atlantic, turn off Sky News and understand that Freedom Works (a conservative organization run by retired republican politicians) created the tea party.

Beef Supreme

The knee-deep hypocrisy is not new -- cut spending on everyone else but keep my entitlements. If a majority of radicals really wanted a small government, they should vote for Ron Paul. He is the most honest and consistent over time of all the radicals.

Jimmy Gatts

Republicans have zero chances of beating Obama in 2012. They threw the sink at him in 08 with the 'he is an Arab - birth certificate" bullshit and he still beat a mainstream candidate like Mc Cain. That nonsense is not going to fly this time around. Obama 52 Romney 48. It is a lock. If you swap Romney for any other Republican it is 53.5 / 46.5.


As a long-time conservative and long-time Economist subscriber, I have often appreciated the views of the paper for their thoughtfulness, even if I have not always agreed with them. For the last few years, however, I've become increasingly disillusioned by the relentless Obama-apologizing running rampant throughout the paper.

On 'stimulus 1', "...they owe this turnaround to luck—Mr Obama’s bad luck." Really? It wasn't that the whole bit of legislation was designed not to stimulate, but to line the coffers of the administration's voter base - huge chunks of it went to shore up public worker pensions and pursue 'green' herrings and other non-economically-viable (what's this magazine's name again?) whimsies. After all, $800B, 'small' or not, is still a fair bit of change.

I wonder if I will see the day the Economist recognizes the true issue here - the American people elected an inexperienced socialist, who has never held a real job producing anything.


What is gushing out of that elephant ?? Looks like a cider to me. And if by the end it drowns in the stuff, surely it must have come from somewhere else too, no way all that came from within. Liquids are incompressible, so even if the elephant is pressured, can't have so much cider come from the insides.
Sorry, I'm an engineer, this is what I was thinking about while reading the article.

Beef Supreme in reply to IMissNixon

"...who has never held a real job producing anything."

that does not set him apart from the other politicians.

Oh, and the American people elected W., the big government chap,

They got smarts, the American people.

Tbr3bKnr6B in reply to IMissNixon

If you look at Mr. Obama's policies, you will find that there is nothing resembling socialism in them. He is one of the more moderate liberals in the country. We have a crumbling infrastructure which needed to be rebuilt, we have crumbling schools that need to be rebuilt, and there were ample tax breaks for everyone else in the bill. The fact that such vital services like roads, bridges and education are often handled by public sector employees was not the purpose of the stimulus bill. It was to jump start the economy and to provide it with...stimulus.

As for Mr. Obama's inexperience, what career path would you suggest? A two term governor oversaw the destruction of the American economy, out-of-control government spending, two mismanaged wars and the start of the recession we fight even now.

In defense of this paper, there's plenty of legitimate criticism to leveled at Mr. Obama, and "The Economist" hasn't balked. As you can probably guess, I come from the opposite side of the aisle, and am consistently impressed with its balanced political coverage.


Ron Paul's plan to balance the budget in 3 years and have a trillion of actual CUTS in year one preserves social security, medicare and student loans and returns welfare entitlements to the states as block grants with no federal mandate strings to keep them from working out their own best solutions.

It also cuts 5 departments, shifting necessary functions to other departments.

It is not only a workable plan, it is a breathtaking plan, a necessary plan.

Your painted picture ignores this fact.


The Republican party has transformed itself, especially after Bush first cameto power, into the party of hatred, anger, obstruccionism and right-wing radicalism. It certainly moved to the right to a far greater extent than the Democratic party did to the left.

Unfortunately America's political parties took a path to warring rather than discussing and compromising. Even the system for choosing people's representatives(the basis of a democracy and the main pilar of the Constitution) got warped in this process of madness - just look at the immorality of the later redistricting processes defining electoral maps.

This war that does not offer much chance to reason is probably the strongest cause of the undisputable decline of the USA's general standing - moral, economical and political - before the rest of the world.


I really thought Obama was going to be a one-term president. If the Republicans continue with the 'poor should pay' and government in the only problem sort of mantra, I can't see them winning even if unemployment reaches 12%. 69% of people think their policies favour the rich? I think their pollsters need to take a look at that?


Lack of impovement in the economy is extremely bad news for Obama's reelection and good news for republican candidates. If the economy does not pick up, it is likely that he will be forced out of the White House.

The economic plans of the republican candidates would have a disasterous effect on the U.S. economy. Instituting a flat income tax rate would increase the income disparity between rich and poor, negatively impacting middle and lower class citizens. Meanwhile, rich Americans would become richer, having fewer taxes to pay and less regulation on their buisness ventures. It is astonishing that lower income members of the tea party do not regonzie how unfair these policies are for the majority of Americans.

USS Geometer

I think what we need to keep in mind here is that during the last mid-terms, not many Dems came out to vote - allowing the Tea Party to punch well above their weight. These people are now more than 20 - maybe 30% of the population. And that may be generous. They're just really loud and angry.

If Dems come out in similar numbers to what they did in '08, I'm confident that the Republicans will lose handily. That's not a lock given Obama's lackluster performance, but with the field the GOP is putting out there, you have to like the odds.

Either way, expect more gridlock. Anyone familiar with Australian immigration rules?

Anonymous in America

FiniteElement - tea is gushing out of the elephant.

Looking at the teapot-elephant cartoon, does The Economist honestly believe Mitt Romney is a Tea Party candidate? If anything, Romney is looking beyond the Tea Party and running a general election campaign.

The Economist misses the point of a primary campaign, which is to energize the base and raise lots of cash for the party. In the general election campaign, the presidential candidates will move to the political center.


"If the committee fails to produce an agreement, or Congress fails to approve it, $1.2 billion of cuts—half of them falling on the hallowed defence budget—will be triggered automatically"

$1.2 TRILLION, not billion. Although they will never let that actually come to pass.


I'm a strong librataian who has little love for the democrates, but the republicans have to get back some sanity, thier motives are right but thier tactics are wrong, their IS a difference between raising taxes to increas spending and raising taxes to DECREASE spending. Small temporery tax increases, are a lot better than Monsteruos sized permanent tax ones. The american people don't want to turn america into lethergic Stagnent, Italy or Greece, thay just what rich to chip in something, just a tiny bit more when we're in a pinch. If the republicans relize this we can still save this country!

Anonymous in America

President Obama lost a battle of ideas in November 2010; the burden is now on him to establish that his ideas are good. In a divided government, the president does not have the benefit of the doubt.

A bad idea that has bipartisan support is still a bad idea.


It is hard to a president in a country where everything you suggest good or bad is filibustered to death by the republican party so that they can show to the people, that don't understand that the president's job isn't to create policies or budget but to either sign off on it or veto it, that Obama is doing nothing but failing. In my opinion one of the only things that Obama has done wrong is be nice to the Republicans. They have clearly show there is no reasoning with them. Play hardball and call them out on what they are doing because it is unacceptable.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

