The power of arguments

Fred Barnes:

Republicans are discovering just how effective an opposition party can be in Washington. Their strategy is simply to aggressively and relentlessly oppose the liberal agenda of the president and the Democratic Congress. As a result, Barack Obama's agenda is in jeopardy, and the president is disconcerted, less popular and on the defensive.

Republican opposition isn't the only reason for this. Mr. Obama did himself no favors by pushing policies far more liberal than voters wanted. But the decision by Republicans to be combative rather than accommodating has played an indispensable role.

What the GOP has done best has been to make and win arguments. This is the key to successful opposition. Seeking compromise, being conciliatory, pretending bipartisanship exists when it doesn't all play into the hands of the majority. These tactics are a ticket to permanent minority status. By making the case against Mr. Obama's policies, Republicans have given themselves a chance to again win favor with voters.

Better yet, they've stopped bad policies in their tracks. Consider Dick Cheney's decision to challenge Mr. Obama's inclination to go soft in the war on terror in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in May. By winning the argument that the nation needs a vigorous defense against al Qaeda, Mr. Cheney left Mr. Obama little choice but to stick with such Bush era policies as rendition of captured terrorists, immunity for telecommunication companies that cooperated with wiretapping possible terrorists, and targeting terrorist leaders for assassination.

Mr. Cheney also took issue with Mr. Obama's announcement that he was going to close the prison in Guantanamo. The former vice president said that the decision came with "little deliberation and no plan." And he was right. Mr. Obama put himself in a trap. To close the prison, his administration might have to import terrorists into the U.S.

"On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the president's own party," Mr. Cheney said. He continued: "Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating in their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental."

The media, the White House and even some Republicans questioned the wisdom of an unpopular Mr. Cheney taking on Mr. Obama while he was still in the honeymoon phase of his presidency. But Mr. Cheney's was right, and he carried the day.

Or consider Sarah Palin's controversial statement that Mr. Obama's health-care plan would establish "death panels" capable of denying care to seniors. Like Mr. Cheney, she was denounced as a know-nothing. But Mrs. Palin accomplished what no one else had. She put a national spotlight on the dubious end-of-life policies in the ObamaCare legislation. Columnists disputed her claim, then realized she had a point. The death panels are dead, for now.

...

There is more.

What is interesting about both these examples is the Democrats first reaction was to insult the messenger instead of respond to their arguments. They are a party that has gained power through demonizing their opponent, but they find defending their programs through demonetization is not all that effective. At some point they have to take responsibility and that is something they are not good at.