The value of obstructionism

Back in April, The Federalist's David Harsanyi wrote a piece defending the Republicans against charges they did nothing ("The GOP Sucks, But It’s Not As Bad As Everyone Thinks"):

Republicans have been dreadful on plenty of fronts—the quality of their advocacy, the spine they show making arguments, and the lack of innovation and malleability in the focus of their policies, to name a very few—but resistance to Obama’s legislative agenda was definitely not one of them. If Republicans had capitulated in the way the average angry populist claims, Obama would not have needed to enact some of the most consequential abuses of executive power since World War II. 

Some of this anger is propelled by false expectations and wishful thinking about how government works—which is to say, when voters don’t get what they want they assume the system has failed. 

In a democracy, when a majority of the voters don't get what they want, it is a failure of the system. This isn't a false expectation, nor is it wishful thinking. If we were a republic, as the Founding Fathers intended, your point would be valid.

Regardless, Harsanyi proceeds to list all of Obama's ideas that got slam-dunked thanks to Republican opposition.

While I am grateful to the GOP for its obstructionism, that is like the hamburger bun in the responsibility of a political party: Where's the beef?

In their defense, I can only offer their Obamacare alternatives, which focus on catastrophic health insurance with a heavy focus on healthcare savings accounts (HSA). This is a far more economically feasible idea than anything else proposed, especially Obamacare.

Beyond that...The sound of crickets chirping you hear are the GOP's alternative policy ideas. Repeating the litany of "tax cuts" over and over is not an idea by itself. It has to be included in a concept of governing, which they just don't have.

There was a time when Republicans claimed to be fiscally conservative. The Bush years showed the lie in that:

From Reagan through Obama, including administrations of both Republicans and Democrats, and Congresses dominated by both parties, and even Washington gridlock between the White House and Congress, we have yet to see any whiff of fiscal conservatism. We have seen some drops in spending during the Obama administration, but that was after the huge increase in 2009 (which mostly went to the Wall Street bailout). We haven't seen a return to 2008 levels, and I doubt we ever will with either of the R's and D's in charge.

While spending isn't the sole indicator of government size, it is a darned good one. Considering spending is estimated to increase by a third in the next 4 years, what are the Republicans going to do about it? Not a damned thing.

Sorry Mr. Harsanyi, but the Republicans are flailing. As you put it:

Now, imagine what the past few years would have looked like if the GOP had participated in passing gun-control legislation and supporting higher energy prices. To be fair, Trump now, in one way or another, supports most of these progressive ideas, and his cultists are perfectly willing to bend their own outlook to match his. But, at the time, “compromise” on the Obama agenda would have created a different kind of turmoil for Trump to take advantage of, because he is not bound by any principled positions.

Sadly, the GOP isn't "bound by any principled positions" either, other than "we aren't Democrats". They are trying to sell a car without an engine, and that just doesn't run.