There is an old adage, which states that it is impossible to get ahead, if you spend all your time getting even.
James at OTB [1] notes McQ’s rehashing of his take on the purposes, and utilities of ‘divided government, by way of Bruce Bartlett [2] on Sullivan’s column.
Bruce Bartlett [2] and Bruce McQuain [3] argue that the American people prefer gridlock and that, paradoxically, divided government (one party controlling the White House and another the Congress) is more likely to achieve conservative aims than having Republicans control both policy-making branches. I’m skeptical of both claims.
It’s true that gridlock has been the norm in recent decades, with Democrats usually controlling at least one House of Congress and Republicans usually winning the presidency. This, however, almost certainly reflects the vagaries of our electoral system rather than some conscious choice for divided government.
There has been a certain degree of slowdown, certainly, but I wouldn’t precisely refer to as “gridlock”. Further, I question whether not gridlock is even desired. Let’s break this down;
First, let’s look at Gridlock, and how, supposedly, we get there.
It seems to me that we are going about this based on the idea that a 50% democrat 50% republican mix, is going to achieve gridlock. I would suggest to you that nothing could be farther from the truth, given the number of liberal republicans that we are dealing with. John McCain being one. Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chaffee, and so on.
You see, the problem, is not so much the parties involved, though that he is a decent indicator, the problem is the underlying principles for each individual. Those are not necessarily reflected by the party label.
The result is a 50/50 balance of democrats to republicans is not going to be enough to halt the tilt to the left. Moreover after 60 years and more of democrat dominated legislatures, even a small republican majority is not going to be enough to overcome the leftist tool that has been established, or even slow it down , given the number of liberal republicans still in the mix.
(An aside: There is a level of amusement, about these comments, having their genesis on the website of Sullivan.. someone whose claims of being a conservative have had their credibility stretched beyond all belief. )
As an example of how going 50/50 doesn’t solve the issue, let’s look at the output of the most recent session of Congress.
An increase of the minimum wage. A very very watered down ethics bill. A Federal budget that’s approximately ten times what President Bush wants, and he being no skinflint himself. Extraordinarily stupid CAFE regulations, which will finish the job of killing off the American auto industry. Tell me again about how this is gridlock.
* Second, let’s attack the issue of whether not gridlock, precisely, assuming that it’s even a cheap of all, is what is needed.
Here, Billy Beck [3] (Here, also [4]) and myself would appear to be on the same page, where he says:
What you’re arguing for is stagnation of destruction at its current pace. That’s utterly hopeless in any case, because of the nature of what’s usually called “compromise” in these affairs. The left is always going to make way, and there is no “gridlock”, in the end.
For my part, I say gridlock a nice first step, but it’s not really what’s needed. what is needed, is repair. There is an old adage, which says you cannot get ahead, if you spend all your time getting even. So it is here. After 60 years and more of leftist dominated legislatures, what is needed is an equal time to the right. In short, repair of the damage. Gridlock even assuming we can achieve it, (and as I have suggested I don’t think we can given the current methods) far from providing that, is going to prevent it.
The one idea that has never been tried is a dominant republican majority. Large enough, so that the republican leadership is not beholden to its own left. I say, that is precisely what is necessary, now. But I also maintain, that that goal is impossible, if what we’re shooting for is “balance”.