When we consider the question of whether Republicans can govern from Capitol Hill, the obvious first thought is that everything they want to do will ultimately come up against Barack Obama's veto pen. That's true, but so is this: The Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the Executive. Neither can really govern without the other. Obama can veto legislation but he can't pass it. Obama can make executive decisions (and clearly loves to do so), but he can't appropriate funds to pay for executive actions.
That has to come from Congress, and therein lies the opportunity - theoretically, anyway - for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to exercise leverage in getting Obama to play ball at least to some degree. Historically this has been the way business gets done when one party controls the White House and the other party controls Congress. Neither is really happy about having to deal with the other, but each understands it needs things from the other, so they make deals.
Boehner and McConnell - assuming they and their caucuses can maintain unity between themselves, which I realize is not easy - should be able to inform Obama that if he wants funding and legislative authority to do certain things, that will come with a price.
That would be effective in dealing with most presidents. But there is a huge problem in attempting this strategy where Barack Obama is concerned: Obama does not have the slightest interest in governing, nor does he much care about limits to his constitutional authority. Obama cares only about politics. Well, that's not entirely true. He also cares about getting to do whatever he wants, and doesn't appreciate when anyone hamstrings his ability to do just that.
When Harry Reid controlled the Senate, he would treat any refusal by the House to accept his spending priorities as a trigger to shut down the government, not caring in the slightest who would be hurt by this but fully prepared to spin a narrative that would make Republicans look like the bad guys. Reid can't do that anymore, but Obama can. If Boehner and McConnell try to demand something from Obama in exchange for something Obama wants, and Obama doesn't want to pay the price, there is really nothing stopping him from simply walking away from the table and accepting whatever governmental cataclysm results. This is irresponsible, terrible governance, but since when does Obama care? As long as he can run to the media and play the usual games he likes to play, it is not a problem in the slightest. No one is going to take away his motorcade or his spot in the Executive Mansion, so he's good. (The Secret Service is another issue, but they don't have their act together regardless of whether they're getting money or not.)
So what are a newly empowered Speaker of the House and Majority Leader to do?
In order to deal effectively with Obama, Boehner and McConnell have to understand Obama's pain points, and they have to overcome any temptation to fear backlash from the media. They also have to be smart. You can't threaten action that will cause people's Social Security checks to be withheld. That's just playing into Obama's hands (not to mention being wrong to do). Obama wields executive power through bodies like the National Labor Relations Board, the FEC and, of course, the federal courts. Boehner and McConnell need to make sure he knows that Congress can and will slow their business to a halt unless Obama works constructively with Congress on things like budgeting and fixes to ObamaCare.
They should also dare him to veto certain things. Congress should put a bill on Obama's desk first thing in January repealing ObamaCare's individual mandate and employer mandate, in addition to the ObamaCare "standards" that make it illegal for insurance companies to continue offering plans that people were perfectly happy with before he threw a wrench in the entire health care finance system.
They should also pass a bill allocating funds for the U.S. military to get everything they need to defeat ISIS and to be prepared for other challenges. Many people don't realize that the Pentagon has significantly slowed its purchase of new ground combat vehicles, and is focusing instead on retrofitting old ones. That is hardly a strategy for military readiness in the 21st Century. The Republican Congress needs to pass legislation to fund new ground combat vehicles and dare Obama to veto it. Is he bound and determined to be a commander in chief who leads the military on the cheap? Then let's see him defend it on the record.
The biggest potential change here is that Obama never used to have to defend his priorities because Harry Reid protected him from having to veto responsible bills. That's over now. We know he doesn't care about good governing, but he cares about his own political #. If Boehner and McConnell push the right buttons effectively, they just might get Obama to come to the table in spite of his complete lack of interest in doing so.
