Government shutdown -- Is this the best of the GOP?

You've got to hand it to John Boehner; as Speaker of the House, he has become a pretty good politician.  Last week, as he stood at the lectern and announced that the House of Representatives--on the voting strength of the Republican majority in that legislative body--was sending a Federal budget without funding for the Affordable Care Act to the Senate, and explained that this was for the good of the American people and clearly supported by the majority of the voting public, it looked like he almost believed what he was saying.

Almost, but not quite.

Mr. Boehner has been around the block several times more than the Tea Party amateurs in his caucus. I think that he is savvy enough to know that fighting for a Republican victory by shutting down the government if Obamacare is not defunded is a losing fight for the Republican Party.

Consider the facts (facts that Mr. Boehner undoubtedly understands):  We had a presidential election last November; in that election, President Obama stood clearly for the continued implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and Mr. Romney's position was for its rejection.  President Obama won the election.  That's a pretty compelling statement of opinion by the American voting public.

What about current public opinion polls?  Well, I just saw CNBC report on their latest poll on the question of whether or not people agree with defunding Obamacare, and by lopsided margins people stated their support for funding that program, especially if the alternative is a government shutdown.

Do polls show that a majority of Americans are, in some way, not satisfied with Obamacare?  Yes, that's true.  I have seen polling that reports 54% feeling that way.  In truth, if I were polled, I would be part of that 54%.  But polls don't do a really good job of getting down to the "why" of things.  In my case--and I believe this to be true for many others in that 54%--I think that the country would be better-off with a single-payer healthcare system, instead of the current and historical fee-for-service structure.  In my case, there's no particular ideological reason for having this opinion; for me, it's a matter of national economics, and how the coldly rational mathematics of that dismal science influence the future success of the nation.  But, that's a conversation for another time.

Put all this together -- it's game, set and match for Obamacare.

Mr. Boehner certainly knows and understands all this.  I also think that he understands that good governance requires clear and consistent legislative actions based far more on what is known and understood about the demonstrated majority intents of the governed populace, and far less on the narrow interpretations of self-interest that are the motivations of many of the Republicans serving in the current House of Representatives.  These people, very simply, are afraid that anything less than intransigent opposition to President Obama's policies will spell doom for them in their next primary election.

Okay, I can understand that people want to win and not lose; that's just human nature.  But Mr. Boehner--and others in leadership positions within the Republican Party--owe it to America to lead  their team in a way that supports the democratic majority intent of the American people.  That's what leaders are supposed to do -- they are supposed to lead, even if that means setting a strategy that is not entirely in concert with the narrower interests of some of the people on the team.

Speaker Boehner, you are not leading.

Instead, you are forcing us to accept threats of a government shutdown by these narrowly-interested people if they don't get their way.  This is petulance, not governance.  Is this the best that the GOP has to offer the country?

It certainly isn't what the country deserves.

But don't listen to me on this.  Listen, instead, to the first Republican President of the United States.  Abraham Lincoln as President devoted himself to sustaining the integrity of the nation; consistent government was part of the deal for him.  You can't have a nation without a functioning government, and Mr. Lincoln bought into that concept lock, stock and barrel.

Would Mr. Lincoln, summoned from the grave and exposed to almost 150 years of changes, growth and progress, be a fan of Obamacare?  It's not for me to put words in another man's mouth, but I think that he would at least be open to the idea.  As I said a few moments ago, don't listen to me, listen to Mr. Lincoln instead:  "With malice toward none; with charity for all. . ."  That's from the closing to his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865.  Less well-known, perhaps, than his Gettysburg Address, but no less powerful.

Would Mr. Lincoln think that shutting down the government is the best that the Republican Party has to offer today?

I doubt it.  I think he would be saddened.