Ramesh Ponnuru recently laid out the reasons for increased Republican opposition in a second Obama term. Noah Millman dubs this the “argument from chutzpah” and explains how it could be turned against them:
One answer is to publicize precisely this argument, and make it a constant talking point in down-ticket races. The evidence is overwhelming that the country hates Congress, and hates it specifically because of its dysfunction. If the GOP is effectively running on perpetuating that dysfunction, I’d think you could cut a pretty good ad about that.
It may be unnecessary to use this argument against Republicans. The public doesn’t seem to have much of an interest in giving either party control of the legislative and executive branches at the same time. When there has been unified government in the recent past, it has been rejected quite quickly. I suspect that one of the most important reasons why the public has no confidence in Congress and disapproves of it as an institution is that most people do not trust the political class, and Congress is the embodiment of that class. Making it easier for one part of that class to enact its agenda would seem to be exactly what most voters don’t want. A majority voted for dysfunction two years ago, and they seem to have done so intentionally. I don’t think that they’re displeased with the results. The “argument from chutzpah” is dangerous for Republicans because it reminds the public of their last experience with unified Republican government, which isn’t likely to improve Romney’s chances of winning. Besides, if the public distrusts the political class as deeply as they seem to, there will be no desire to give either party a mandate.
We know how Republicans reacted to Clinton’s re-election. There was a mixture of frustration and disbelief, which led them into an increasingly bitter political fight with Clinton leading up to his impeachment that they ended up losing. They made no more gains in the ’98 midterms, and they even managed the unusual feat of losing seats in the House in a sixth-year election. Of course, much will depend on economic circumstances, but the GOP’s most recent experience with a second-term Democratic President suggests that continued rejectionism could produce diminishing returns and may not help them very much politically in another two years.
charlie 
Tom 
American but not Conservative 
Daniel Larison 
Andrew 
Barry 
JonF 
One problem with this analysis, Daniel.
In the past, divided government has generally produced compromise, and somewhat sensible policy. Clinton got a lot of business done with the GOP Congress in the 1990s, and the Reagan/Bush got a lot of stuff done despite a Democratic controlled congress in the 1980s.
The current MO of the GOP–and so far, we haven’t seen counter behavior from the Democrats–is the scorched-earth tactics of obstruction and denial of any cooperation, with routine business being filibustered and delayed, compromise legislation being ignored, and an ill-fated attempt to hold the country’s credit rating hostage to win significant political concessions.
In bicameral parliamentary systems in which this can occur (i.e Australia), the stalemates tend to get resolved by new elections being called so the people can elect a new government empowered to do their bidding. In the US, though, there are no snap elections and no dissolution of Congress.
Could similar obstruction work for the Democrats, in the unlikely event that Romney wins the White House but the Democrats take back the House and keep the Senate? One reason that it works–and this is a theory that will get tested this November–is a belief that Obama will be held responsible for the economy, no matter how much his policies are obstructed or diluted. Were Obama to lose, Democrats might be eager to try the same if the shoe is on the other foot. That said, as the party of more activist government, they would have less to benefit from it, and I suspect the press corps would come down harder on Democratic obstructionism than on the GOP.