With Barack Obama in the White House and a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, Republicans should form an honorable opposition that focuses on genuine policy differences instead of attacking their opponents' character. Similarly, Democrats should work toward a consensus and should avoid a highly partisan agenda that would punish the minority.

Senior Fellow Kevin A. Hassett

As Republican politicians and pundits look forward to spending at least two years in the opposition, they must decide on its character.

Will they declare war on President-elect Barack Obama from the outset, or will they look for opportunities to work with him? As they consider their options, they should be guided by a simple truth: The emergence of an honorable opposition would transform America for the better.

The truth is, the near-term future of this country depends more on Republicans than it does on Democrats.

Our Founding Fathers designed a government that has a hard time accomplishing anything. The filibuster in the Senate, in particular, makes progress in this country dependent on the good will of the opposition.

When our country functions well, as it did, for example, in the mid-1980s, when President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill worked together to achieve fundamental policy victories such as Social Security reform and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, it does so because disagreement isn't allowed to generate dislike.

Benjamin Disraeli, the great British statesman who spent much of his career in the opposition, remarked upon this phenomenon once when he wrote that "King Louis Philippe once said to me that he attributed the great success of the British nation in political life to their talking politics after dinner."

Washington is clearly failing, and it is doing so because it has been far too long since politics were discussed productively after dinner. The problem is simply this: It is impossible to dine with someone you hate. Sixteen years of hatred have brought this country to its knees.

How We Live

Hatred has become a way of life.

Bill Clinton came to Washington in 1992 as a New Democrat and pursued many policies, such as welfare reform, that should have appealed to conservatives. In spite of this, palpable Clinton hatred animated conservatives whose war against Clinton was all out, and deeply personal.

In the past eight years, Bush hatred has replaced the Clinton variety. Bush has attempted to reach across the aisle and pursue long-held Democratic objectives such as the prescription drug plan. Like Clinton, he has received little credit from his opponents.

Politicians, and those who write about politics, can easily create a climate that stops Obama hatred before it forms. It really only requires two simple steps that can be summarized by one simple thought: Try to be someone your opponent would like to invite to dinner.

Step One

The first step is to refrain from impugning the character or motives of those you disagree with. All incorrect statements are not lies.

If you need a model of the opposite behavior, consider the recent statement by former Clinton administration official Paul Begala that President George W. Bush is a "high functioning moron." This base insult has been passed around, shall we say, liberally.

If you construct a list of significant Republican national figures, you will quickly find that it can be divided into two lists. First there are those who are "stupid," such as Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and Bush. Then there are those who are "evil," such as Vice President Dick Cheney or now-deceased Senator Jesse Helms. Reagan was so effective that he achieved the lofty status of being both "stupid" and "evil."

The second step is for the Republican community to do something that the Democratic community failed to do in the past eight years: collectively enforce honorable standards by objecting when others stray. Behave honorably, and demand that of others.

Good Behavior

I am certain that there will be countless times in the next few years when Austan Goolsbee, perhaps Obama's choice to head the Council of Economic Advisers, or Jason Furman, Obama's campaign economic-policy director, make statements that Republican economists will believe are incorrect. It will be appropriate to attack these statements, but inappropriate to attack the gentlemen themselves.

Anyone who crosses the line should be called on it by Republicans, not Democrats.

These steps will not, of course, guarantee that the climate in Washington will change. Obama may decide to ignore Republican inputs, and pursue a highly partisan agenda. He may appoint angry partisans to key positions, and continue to blame, as Nancy Pelosi recently did, America's problems on Republicans.

But if he does so, then he will accomplish little of significance. The Bush tax cuts will be reversed, but the tax code will continue to look as if it were designed by a drug addict. Unions will have the right to organize firms without a secret ballot, but Medicare and Social Security will be unreformed. Money will be thrown at ethanol, but meaningful climate-change legislation will die on the vine.

Such a path might be attractive to those who care most about a Republican renaissance. An Obama with few accomplishments may well be an easier opponent to defeat in four years. But it is unacceptable to anyone who cares most about this country.

Kevin A. Hassett is a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at AEI.