In essence, the hard-line faction of the House GOP is demanding the following, as recent NYT, WSJ, and WaPo articles, apart from today’s, have made clear:
EITHER the Administration must undo the main legislative accomplishment of the president’s time in office, which he passed despite filibuster resistance four years ago and which the Supreme Court has since held constitutional;
OR ELSE all other business of the government will be halted, and the full faith and credit of the United States will be called into question, with unknown but likely bad world-financial consequences.
This is not what either John Boehner or Mitch McConnell says he stands for. I have no doubt that Obama could ultimately strike some compromise with even McConnell’s filibuster-happy Senate Republicans and any kind of normal Republican majority in the House. In the end Democrats would complain that Obama had caved, Republicans would complain about Beltway insiderism, but some deal would result. Yet enough of today’s absolutist House members think in exactly these Either/Or terms that normal compromise is simply impossible. Compromise itself is as much their stated enemy as is Obamacare.
Emphasis mine. For the most part, a two-party, dual-ideology system works so that you can have extreme factions on either side, they can come together, compromise on something, and some measure of good and fairness can come of it. That’s how politics and lawmaking has worked in this country for 200+ years. But what are you supposed to do when enough of one side of an argument would rather see this country burn to the ground than to compromise at all? How is that anything short of terrorism?