Last week, noting that the Republican Party abandoned its previous support for bailouts and fiscal stimulus precisely when they lost power, I argued that Republicans probably weren't engaged in conscious economic sabotage. Rather, they simply allowed themselves to change their mind in a way that dovetailed with their political self-interest:
People are extraordinarily deft at making their principles -- not just their stated principles, but their actual principles -- comport with their interests. The old Upton Sinclair quote -- "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it" -- has a lot of wisdom to it.
I don't think many Republicans are actually trying to stop legislation that might help the economy recover because they know that a slow economy is their best route to regaining power. I think that when they're in power, consequences like an economic slowdown or a collapsing industry seem very dire, and policies to prevent this are going to sound compelling. When you're out of power, arguments against such policies are going to sound more compelling.
Jonathan Zasloff thinks they are engaging in sabotage -- and that's okay!
If you’re a right-wing Republican nutcase — which is to say, you are a Republican — then you think that Democratic policies are very, very bad for the country. If that is so, then what you fear is that the economy will improve, salvaging Democratic hopes for this November’s midterms. And that will lead to more Democratic policies than otherwise, which – in your view — will be very, very bad for the country.
So of course you want to “sabotage” any economic recovery over the next few months, because you believe that any temporary improvement will pale in comparison to the medium- and long-term damage that Democratic policies will cause. That’s a hard calculus, but it’s a pretty straightforward one, and perfectly reasonable if you accept Republican assumptions.
In 2006, I was frightened that the economy would somehow improve and save Republican control of Congress. Fortunately it didn’t, and Democrats took over, to the lasting benefit of the nation. I don’t think that I, or any Democrat, should apologize for that attitude. And neither should Republicans now.
It's not a terrible argument. Of course, it requires imposing a great deal of economic hardship on the public in order to bring about more distant and uncertain relief in the future. Moreover, it's yet another reason why a political system that gives the minority party veto power over the majority's agenda is deeply flawed.

Ian Millhiser catches Sen. Jeff Sessions expressing the embodiment of the modern Republican judicial philosophy: demanding aggressively intervene to overturn laws they don't like, while leaving in place laws they do like. First Sessions announced:
The American people are concerned about their courts. They’re concerned about a growing expansive government that seems to be beyond anything they’ve ever seen before. And they’d like to know what their judges might have to do about it. So I think that’s kind of where we are.
Then, seconds later, he added:
The question is: does the judge understand that they can’t utilize the power, the lifetime appointment, to redefine the meaning of the constitution — to have it promote an agenda in an activist way that the American people won’t vote for.
Both parties are fairly instrumental about the law. They favor judicial activism in issue areas where they're politically weak, and support it in areas where they're politically strong. The difference is that Republicans tend to alternate their demands for judicial activism with a lot more pious declarations of fealty to judicial restraint.
Ian Millhiser catches Sen. Jeff Sessions expressing the embodiment of the modern Republican judicial philosophy: demanding aggressively intervene to overturn laws they don't like, while leaving in place laws they do like. First Sessions announced:
The American people are concerned about their courts. They’re concerned about a growing expansive government that seems to be beyond anything they’ve ever seen before. And they’d like to know what their judges might have to do about it. So I think that’s kind of where we are.
Then, seconds later, he added:
The question is: does the judge understand that they can’t utilize the power, the lifetime appointment, to redefine the meaning of the constitution — to have it promote an agenda in an activist way that the American people won’t vote for.
Both parties are fairly instrumental about the law. They favor judicial activism in issue areas where they're politically weak, and support it in areas where they're politically strong. The difference is that Republicans tend to alternate their demands for judicial activism with a lot more pious declarations of fealty to judicial restraint.