Another reason why "Hoover" means "suck"

*
Josh Marshall has a few posts up today puzzling over the possible resurgence of the Herbert Hoover wing of the Grand Old Party. Given how unlikely it is that a "neo-Hooverite" pro-depression economic ideology will sweep the nation (like the Mudshark) anytime soon, Josh wonders whether the new Hooverite vanguard is motivated by

“strictly economic reasons (creditors can do well in a deflationary economy), moral reasons (need a good hard recession to re-teach the poor moral values) or just because they're economic illiterates....”

One TPM reader offered a fourth hypothesis that I think best explains why these creatures are trying to rally the party around the legacy of Herbert Hoover instead of swarming back under their rocks for a few decades. He says:

“Given the new demographic realities of the country, Obama's presidency must be a failure if Republicans are to ever emerge from the political wilderness. The more they obstruct, the more Obama and Congressional Democrats will be forced to water down economic policy. And a watered-down policy just won't cut it at this moment in history. This is sabotage, pure and simple.”

Oh goody --- I truly hope so! I think a Republican strategy like that would be outstanding for the country, especially without a Democrat supermajority in the Senate. Now, for progressive legislation to be enacted rapidly, some Republicans are going to have to vote with Democrats. And I’m certain they will do exactly that if they want their political careers to remain intact for long.

I think some people are forgetting that the GOP no longer has unified political leadership let alone any power to reward and punish. This may not have sunk in on Republicans yet. I can’t think of any reason why the likes of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins would support a long Republican filibuster of, say, a national healthcare bill or an infrastructure program just because Mitch McConnell decrees it... especially since Democrats can wheel, deal, and threaten to gain the support of moderates who want a piece of the action. It's feasible that we could see the so-called "Gang of 14" working backwards, drawing its Republican members over to vote with Democrats.

For that matter, I can’t think of any good reason why a moderate Senate Republican wouldn’t consider shedding his or her toxic brand and switching parties. Obama’s magnanimity toward Lieberman, considered from this perspective, might be seen as a shrewd move to subliminally invite a few more conservative Senators into the Democrat tent. The opportunity to be treated with respect might have its attractions for a handful of the more reality-based Republicans.

Meanwhile, on CNN and Fox News, Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Shopper can enjoy the spectacle of Republican stalwarts creating gridlock in the Congress for purposes of burnishing Herbert Hoover’s legacy (i.e., The Great Depression). In the process, they may even learn that there is already a widely accepted modern name for neo-Hooverite doctrine: Reaganomics.