Gridlock and a dead-end street

By Noralyn Dudt

Merriam-Webster defines gridlock as a traffic jam in which a grid of intersecting streets is so completely congested that no vehicular movement is possible. The grid is locked... no one can move... everyone stays in place.

In the same way, gridlock in government occurs when both houses of Congress cannot agree on going forward on a particular issue. The government then is literally going nowhere. In United States politics, gridlock frequently refers to occasions when the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by different parties,  or by a different party than the party of the president. Gridlock may also occur within the Senate, when no party has a filibuster-proof majority.

A primary cause of gridlock is the filibuster rule in Senate, which calls for a supermajority of 60 senators to bring a bill to the floor. The Congress and Senate cannot agree....

In many ways, gridlock is endemic to our national politics,  the natural consequence of separated institutions sharing and competing for power.

Casual observers of Washington recognize tremendous variation in Congress' performance.  At times, congressional prowess is stunning. The Great Society Congress under Lyndon Johnson, for example, enacted landmark health care, environment,  civil rights, transportation,  and education statutes ( to name a few) At other times, gridlock prevails, as when in 1992, congressional efforts to cut the capital gains tax and to reform lobbying,  campaign finance, banking, parental leave, and voters registration laws ( to name a few) ended in deadlock.

Although they have no formal role in Congressional negotiations, the President often acts as a dealmaker-in-chief, shepherding a bill's through Congress and probing members of Congress to determine how they are inclined to vote. For example,  the Affordable Care Act required months of negotiations,  in which President Obama met with conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans in order to coax a 60-vote Senate majority.

Members of Congress with moderate views can be derailed by those whose views are either ultra-right or ultra left. Moderate members then can get extremely frustrated with the system and decide to quit. Sadly, that's exactly what is happening. Ultimately,  we are left with those 2 groups of ultra-right and ultra left. They can argue and debate a case or an issue forever and ever and the whole country is at their mercy.

This is a situation that is happening in democratic countries especially in the West. It's in this political climate that citizens become disenchanted with their democratically-elected representatives. A breeding ground for distrust and suspicions that can easily usher a demagogue, one who promises to fix all that is broken. History tells us that in the end,  a dictator this demagogue becomes,  and what was supposed to be freedom from the effects of government gridlock turns into an endless series of wrong turns. A cycle that perhaps only can be broken when citizens choose leaders who do not pander to ideological whims. Citizens who are well-informed and a government who fosters critical thinking skills would be the ideal tool to break such a vicious cycle. Too idealistic perhaps? But when we are at a dead-end street, it's certainly worth trying.

 

Noralyn Onto Dudt, a resident of the Washington DC area considers herself fortunate to have the "front row seat" in watching how government policies are formulated.