Jacob Weisberg, a writer I greatly admire, believes that one of the central facts about our political moment is the death of the “Responsible Republicans.” Because we don’t agree about what it means to be responsible — I believe that the ACA was deeply irresponsible — it’s hardly surprising that I wasn’t persuaded by his argument. And he fingers Bill Kristol, another writer I greatly admire, as the central culprit in his narrative, which inclines me towards skepticism. So take my analysis with a grain of salt.

The column opens with a paean to the Responsible Republicans of the 1980s:

Do you remember the Responsible Republicans? In the 1980s, small herds of them still roamed freely around Washington. In 1982, they voted for the largest tax increase in history to mitigate the fiscal harm of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. In 1983, they converged on Capitol Hill to pass a package of tax increases and benefit cuts recommended by the Greenspan Commission to keep Social Security solvent. In 1986, they followed Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson to pass bipartisan immigration reform legislation by a large majority. In 1990, several were spotted with President George H.W. Bush (the Responsible one) at Andrews Air Force Base, conspiring to reduce the deficit.

Note that by the 1980s, the Democrats had been in control of the House for three decades. Republicans had managed to contest control of the U.S. Senate, but the ideological alliances did not always track partisan loyalties. The Boll Weevils in the House provided crucial support for President Reagan, and liberal Republicans were not yet an endangered species. This is a familiar story, but it’s easy to forget how it shaped the political environment.

If Responsible Republicans are in fact nearing extinction, I think we can identify the crucial event that signaled their demise. It was a December 1993 memo by conservative strategist and commentator William Kristol. Kristol’s advice about how Republicans should respond to Bill Clinton’s 1993 health care effort—and a series of follow-up memos he wrote in 1994—pushed the GOP away from cooperation with Democrats on any social and economic legislation. His message marks the pivotal moment when Republicans shifted from fundamentally responsible partners in governing the country to uncompromising, hyperpartisan antagonists on all issues.

As Weisberg goes on to explain, this reflected the zero-sum logic of electoral politics. Once it looked as though control of the House could really be contested, the conservative Republican minority was no longer content to tinker at the edges, in the hopes of making marginal gains. This also shaped the strategy of congressional Democrats during the Bush years, to great effect.

In the late 1990s, it looked as President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich might succeed in crafting an agreement that would reform Social Security and Medicare, as William Voegeli observes in his new book Never Enough. But then the Lewinsky scandal intervened and all hope for an agreement evaporated. This episode arguably proved more consequential that the Kristol memo in exacerbating partisan enmity. Many liberals embraced a scorched-earth, zero-sum view at this point — one couldn’t compromise with Republicans; rather, one had to defeat them.

For example, 12 Democratic senators voted for the first Bush tax cut, which passed through the reconciliation process. Had those senators approached the Bush White House and called for passing a comprehensive tax reform that didn’t go through the reconciliation process and thus didn’t involve the sunsets and other gimmicks that made that legislation so problematic, perhaps we would’ve had a better tax code. And if they pressed for tough entitlement reforms, like those very nearly embraced by Clinton and Gingrich, as a package deal, we’d be better off still. Why didn’t that happen? Was it a failure of the Responsible Democrats? Or did it reflect a deep-seated and legitimate disagreement about the right course of action?

I’m inclined to think that it was the latter.

The Democrats passed a PAYGO rule that does not apply to extending the Bush tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and households making less than $250,000. Does this represent the death of the Responsible Democrats? I wouldn’t characterize it that way, as I have no reason to let Republicans off the hook.

Keith Hennessey has done an excellent job of explaining why the irresponsibility mantle doesn’t belong to any one political party.