= new reply since forum marked as read
Cheers!But you make a good point.
They mainly seem to want to tear down government and break things, then exploit any resulting dysfunction, confusion or chaos. They can accomplish this handily using a passive approach like this, when they have enough power to obstruct but not to actively destroy as they could during the ShrubCo period. Their stance puts us in a defensive position, since we at least want to try to make government work. From that position, we can't move anything forward and in order to accomplish much we have to keep moving toward their positions, losing ground. This ironically puts us in a conservative role, giving them the vanguard as they seek change (albeit destructive change). That helps them draw in people who are frustrated by "the system". They look like the side that is seeking change, we look like the side defending a broken establishment, even while they've been the ones consistently seeking to break things.
It's hard to see how we can actually move forward, in that situation. It's troubling. A relative of mine voted Democratic in the last election and was emphatically opposed to the Republican stance. Now he's voicing frustration with the state of things and beginning to be swayed by the idea that, with the system not working, things need to be torn down. Keep working his dissatisfaction and he might be easy prey for a teabag movement in 2014.
We really need to call the Reugnants out on this sort of thing. I'm not sure our overall position is as strong as we keep telling ourselves. Continuing to play this game for two years, or four, may not lead voters to reject our opposition as our hopes would have it. But... I am a massive worrywart! 
