The Glory of Gridlock
Likewise, Newt Gingrich must look back on his tenure as House speaker today and wonder why he didn’t get more done. Taxes remained relatively high; the “middle-class tax cut” promised by Clinton in 1992 didn’t actually arrive until after George W. Bush took office in 2001. Again, with the exception of welfare reform, the edifice of big government remained in place — but it should still be noted here that it did not grow significantly during that period. Neither side could agree on budget priorities, so in the end both wound up essentially defaulting to a fairly mild rate of annual increase. That essential inaction, plus the tech/productivity boom, brought on the until-then inconceivable sight of consecutive balanced budgets.
The truth is, all that happened not because of wise executive leadership or innovative legislation, but rather because the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue just plain hated each others’ guts. Neither side wanted to give the other any resemblance of a political win, and both dug in for a long, nasty haul. Nothing much happened legislatively, and very little policy that either side promoted became law. And on balance, that inactivity was a beneficent feature, not a bug.
All this isn’t to say that divided government is a perfect situation. Large programs can’t be started, but they also can’t be reformed — although as we’ve seen recently, that inertia isn’t unique to divided eras. Neither Obama nor Clinton could ram through socialized medicine, even with large Democratic majorities. George W. Bush also failed when he attempted to reform the Social Security entitlement (something Clinton lacked the interest or political courage to try), in no small part thanks to an immovable Democratic minority. Bush did push through an expensive, Democrat-demanded prescription drug benefit, but that’s the exception that proved the rule: when both sides of the aisle want to expand government, they usually succeed.
But taking issue with Stephen Green, it’s also far from clear that the ideal government contains a Democratic president facing a Republican Congress. Regardless of who controls Capitol Hill, the executive cabinet departments exercise vast power thanks to the last 70 years of government growth. One need only look at the destructive buffooneries of Eric Holder or Janet Reno and Napolitano to appreciate how much damage a bad administration can wreak without any help from Congress. Flipping the presidency around, liberals understandably squawk about the treatment of favored departments like the EPA or Labor during Republican administrations.
The one thing that hasn’t been tried in modern history — not since Calvin Coolidge sat in the Oval Office — is a small-government Republican president with a like-minded congressional majority. Reagan dealt with a Democratic House for his entire presidency, and no other GOP president since Silent Cal has seriously endeavored to limit — much less reduce — the size of the federal government. Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bushes 41 and 43 — in domestic policy these were all variations on the theme of big-government Republicanism.
There’s certainly no guarantee that we’ll see that kind of united government soon, or indeed ever, but it would be edifying to see if it could work. We could do worse — and we usually do.
The problem is with the cards being dealt to begin with;
The US govt does not have authority over its own banking system, or currency. It is controlled by European banking groups, and nothing the US does will ever create real change required until it rids itself of those international banking leeches sucking the lifeblood from the US economy.
When the US govt gets the spine to take back control of its economy, then we might see substantial progress. Until then we are just digging one hole to fill another.
Divided government might possibly prevent things from getting worse. But only a center- right essentially undivided government can undo the past damage! The extent of the destruction is so mind-boggling awful that we need a Republican president and both houses of the Congress, for instance, to reverse John F. Kennedy’s horrible 1962 executive order allowing government employees to unionize. This may be the number one thing on our to-do list. There will be no serious attempts to rollback the welfare state if the Democrats can block them. Our national debt cannot be resolved by halfway measures. We must also get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and countless other wasteful government entities. A large of number of government employees must lose their jobs. A dramatic phase-out must occur soon. Time is not on our side. And don’t forget the appointment of federal judges. The Democrats have severely harmed the economy with their picks. It is no exaggeration to argue that left-wing judges have emptied the pocketbook of everyone employed in the private sector. They are saviors only to public sector workers.
Modern technology makes it much easier to monitor the behavior of our elected officials. We need to get as much information online as possible. Transparency is the key. That should pretty well take care of it. Please note my complete lack of faith in the Democrats. The Republicans are truly our last hope. However, blind faith is not required. Trust, but also verify should be our motto.
“a small-government Republican president with a like-minded congressional majority” -Will Collier
It might be a little too late but it sure couldn’t hurt to TRY and shoot for the moon! Heckies, I’ll get on board and dream big!
“A large of number of government employees must lose their jobs. A dramatic phase-out must occur soon.” -David Thomson
Indeed, and this is just one hot mess that came to mind:
700 NYC teachers paid to do nothing
Setting up our government so it could be divided and gridlocked was one of the founding fathers best ideas. It tends to keep stupid ideas from becoming law. We the people should love gridlock not disdain it. Where did we ever get the idea that congress needs to be making new laws on a continuing basis. Every law they make, makes us less free. No laws since the bill of rights has given us more freedom. All laws limit our freedom. I do understand that society needs certain rules to survive. But enough already. Pay congress to play solitair on their computers all day and we will be much for free for it. Gridlock gives me a feeling of freedom that is only over shadowed by the freedom I felt when Clinton shut down the federal government.
Here’s an idea. In an effort to control pollution in Washington, Lets shut off the heat and the AC to the capitol building. Maybe then these idiots would go home and leave us alone.
The men who framed the Constitution made it very difficult to pass important legislation without broad based support by both parties…that way, the blame was equally spread. What the Democrats don’t understand is that they have a significant majority in both houses and had the ability to pass whatever they wanted to pass. Not being able to do so is a measure of their own incompetence…of course, if they pass legislation that is widely unpopular across the political spectrum, they’ll pay for it at the polls.
Already, they’ve had some significant retirements, and I expect that number to grow much larger. If they pass the measure that will enable the government to seize control of the health care industry, they’ll be very lucky to keep the 103 seats that Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner…and that means that 153 seats are now in play in the house and 16 of the 17 seats they hold in the Senate will be as well. Even the seat in Washington is up for play with the sitting Senator running 6 points BEHIND a GOP candidate who hasn’t even announced he’ll run yet…
This means that the ripple against Mr. Obama’s agenda that began last February with the utterance of the phrase “tea party” in Chicago last year…will turn into a political tsunami this November.
If we omit the possibility of genuine Constitutional constraint, then yes: divided government and the consequent near-paralysis is our best hope. But there are some indications that popular sentiment is congealing around a return to Constitutional limitations on government. That would be greatly superior to any imaginable divided-government scenario, even if much of the excess Washington has indulged this century past should prove un-repealable.
Of course, the TEA Party types demanding a return to Constitutional fidelity aren’t quite a majority of the movement yet. Nor do we know, should they become a majority of the nation, how they would respond to the Washington Monument Defense. These next three years could tell us much. We shall see.
Gridlock has always been my favoite form of federal government, with the exception of the times it was shut down completely for budge reasons.
The Founding Fathers were not even thinking about competing political parties when James Madison advocated for checks and balances. Do a number of you really want someone like President Obama in the White House even though both houses of Congress might be control of the Republicans? You are completely ignoring the rollback of the welfare society that must be accomplished. Merely not letting things get worse—is not good enough. Furthermore, the Democratic Party has been captured by postmodernist utopians! It is truly finished as a national party. The so-called moderates are being effectively purged. Only the bluer regions of the nation are likely to cast their ballots for their candidates. Last but not least, the Democrats are also irreversibly committed to a mealy mouth response to Islamic radicalism.
It may be counterintuitive, but divided government seems to be the best solution to big spending and program overreach by Congress.
Congress not “getting much done on behalf of the American people” can be a good thing.
And what ever happened to the notion of citizen legislatures, anyway? Shouldn’t these lifelong Congresscritters just sit for brief sessions during the year, and then return to real jobs back home ? Geez, for many of them, the seat is viewed as an entitlement, their full time job, with perks, staff etc. for life.
The felonies have been compounded in so many ways, with bureaucratic agency upon bureaucratic agency mostly obsessed with their own internal turf wars (which factor, incidentally enough, contributed to the Wall between CIA/FBI that helped enable 911)
In any event, does a healthy society (that may not be ours) really need a constant, daily legislative stream emanating from DC?
As we say here in the hills, “Hold on to your wallet when congress is in session.”
If there is a big and real crisis, then let them work together. The problem is that politicians like to solve (read:spend) invented crisis, or worse, they think that the national treasury is their personal checkbook. Together their largess is our grief. Congress’s personal club house joke must be about how well they can fool the American public.
I’m all for it. You obstruct. We’ll ram. Sounds good to me.
5. Rich Vail:
“The men who framed the Constitution made it very difficult to pass important legislation without broad based support by both parties”
Which is why Bush used reconciliation.
9. tanstaafl:
“And what ever happened to the notion of citizen legislatures, anyway?”
John Mellencamp wasn’t too popular around here. Why not? because he wasn’t a conservative citizen.
You have no standing.
As we say here in the hills, “Hold on to your wallet when congress is in session.”
Mark Twain, over 100 years ago….
“There is no distinctly native American criminal class…save Congress.”
“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
P.J. O’Rourke, in modern times…
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
Will Collier is correct in that we need a true conservative Republican congressional majority and president. However as David Thomson touched on there is much more government to be repealed and reduced than Calvin Coolidge faced when he sat in the Oval Office. Due to the staggering number of special interest and the power they wield the conservative majorities in congress would need to be significantly more overwhelming than that which the Democrats now hold. This is the only way to eliminate the need to bargain with a small number of legislators over any specific issue. Only a ruthless, brutal if necessary dedication to the task at hand will accomplish the goal of liberating us from the freedom crushing monster our government has become. The current “gridlock “can only be temporary holding action. Today’s Democratic Party is much farther left than in the 90s. While the left likes to state that the Republicans are much farther to the right than a few years ago, sadly this is not the case. To save this country from the coming socialist darkness our choices are clear. Every cut to government spending is going to have a negative impact on somebody. But the cutting must be done. The American people can appreciate the value of liberty and personal independence, if bigger government was the answer Europe would be the workers paradise they’ve aspired to become these past 100 years.
Let’s not forget the plan: You always need a crisis. The crisis is now a “broken government” “Gridlock”. “Partisan politics”. I suggest the government is not broken, Rather, its acting exactly as it should. The will of the people have prevailed this past year for the most part. Move to the right, and you will find consensus not gridlock.
http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/steady-drumbeat-the-government-is-broken/
One of the bigger whoppers I continue to see passed around as fact is the supposed “budget surpluses” during the last part of the Clinton Presidency. Baloney. There were never any “surpluses”.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Clinton and a Republican Congress were the benefactors of serendipity and little else, short of welfare reform. And then, Democrats like Clinton were dragged to the table after the fear they would find themselves in permanent minority status if they didn’t pass reform.
An overinflated stock market later proven a ruse constituted the largest part of the success of the late 90s. A divided government solved nothing. Give me a Congress willing to deal with runaway entitlements, no matter the party, then we will talk.
But the solution is certainly not gridlock.
“I suggest the government is not broken, Rather, its acting exactly as it should.”
The historical evidence contradicts your argument. You literally do not have a leg to stand on. The Progressive Movement changed everything. It introduced the bizarre belief that human nature had changed. The Founding Fathers concept of checks and balances was no longer valid in a modern society. Our “elite” universities had become secular monasteries and its graduates priests and nuns of the new order. They were committed to placing the interests of the common folk above their own. The unwashed masses merely had to stay out of the way and let them perform their wondrous deeds.
I’m all for a divided government, provided that it causes the debt to be reduced, but….
Maybe there is a better way. MAYBE the Republican party can actually learn their lesson and hear the voice of the people. Just look at CPAC this year.
Ron Paul won the straw poll. Huckabee complains about all the riff raff libertarians….
Well, those riff raff libertarians might be on to something. We’d never have been in any of the ridiculous positions that we are in right now with the debt if any of the powerful republicans during the Bush years had had a shred of integrity when it came to the core (libertarian) values that they were supposed to be espousing. No, we got fooled by the Bushies. They are big government liberals that fly under the radar because they blather about Jesus.
I was speaking with a fundamentalist christian the other day and that was the point he made about the Bush years.
I sincerely believe that the social conservatives would rather have a more libertarian government that doesn’t whine about gay marriage but instead limits government spending.
For those social conservatives that are not sold on this idea, lend me your ears: Nearly all agenda items of the left/liberal/democrat/progressive/socialist is predicated on the use of large amounts of government spending:i.e. your tax dollars.
Libertarians aren’t going to spend that money. The NEA is not enumerated in the constitution.
To sum up, the only way, I think (from experience) that the Republicans are going to be able to govern with any kind of integrity is from a libertarian mindset.
Skeeziks, “standing” refers to having been harmed by an offense.
17. I concur, but I must add that abortion is still non-negotiable. In truth, abortion ought to be as offensive to libertarians as slavery.
18. myth buster:
“Skeeziks, “standing” refers to having been harmed by an offense.”
According to someone who prefers to avoid substance, truth and accountability by seeking out the narrowest and most arcane definition of terms. By every other standard, it means exactly what I meant – a good and well-deserved position or reputation – hence, you have no standing (again).
Class dismissed. How about some pizza?
19. myth buster:
What we CAN do is prevent funding for abortion coming out of the taxpayers wallet. Getting rid of abortion?
Personally I don’t think it will ever go away because it’s just such a perfect electoral prop.
And what I would caution you about again is big government Republicans whining about abortion as a way to get your vote with the understanding that they are NEVER going to actually do anything about those thing–all the while spending YOUR money on…well, anything that they can spend money on.
My suspicion is that for the Republican party, abortion is the perfect way to maintain a significant portion of their constituency–and for that reason it will NEVER go away.
20. skeeziks:
Hmmm…you’re back…I guess the SSI check came in and you got enough money to charge up the the Rascal to get it over to the front of the computer.
You didn’t have to walk to the welfare office did you? I can only imagine a 400 lb woman having to hoof it to the welfare office. That would be either an injustice or high comedy.
22 Layer of Baal,
I can always count on you for the most banal contributions. You never disappoint, nor do you ever entertain. You simply repeat. Kind of like my dog and her relentless need for validation and attention. Feel free to prove me right, perhaps something involving slums and knees. No hurry, it can wait until you’re done licking yourself.
baal said:
“My suspicion is that for the Republican party, abortion is the perfect way to maintain a significant portion of their constituency–and for that reason it will NEVER go away.”
Substitute “Democratic” for Republican, or “Drugs” or “Terrorists” or “Health Care” or “Racism” or “Sexism” or “insert anything you like ending in ‘ism’” for “Abortion” in any combination and all are true statements. The rise of the single issue voter isn’t the result of divide and conquer, rather it is divide and rule. The two wings of the Republicrat party are composed opposing coalitions of self righteous victims.
Both sides led by self important narcassits bent on spending everything they steal from us and borrow from China to strut around the world either playing policman or charity. And both are supported by those who think of themselves as either victims or saviours based on equally flawed feelings of class envy, class guilt or classic gullibility. We wring our minds trying to wrap them around every problem in the world and pour the results onto blog pages as though it means something, because we care so much. While the professionals in DC just pour another Scotch and laugh because they are as entertained by us as we are by them.
There is no perfect party or candidate for any of us because we can not all have it our way. Gridlock gives the professional politicians something to do, and the optimum setting to be entertaining. Because, in the end, entertainment is what politics is. So put it in gridlock and let ‘em spin their wheels all day because nothing good has ever come from either wing of the Republicrat party getting too much control.
23. skeeziks:FAIL. I am entertaining, and you are fat.
“So put it in gridlock and let ‘em spin their wheels all day because nothing good has ever come from either wing of the Republicrat party getting too much control.”
You are perhaps unwittingly surrendering to the Democrat’s past welfare state victories—and apparently given up on ever reversing them. This is simply not good enough. We must roll them back! Divided government will not get us anywhere near the Constitutional republican vision of our Founding Fathers. We also cannot stay with the status quo. The already committed entitlement programs will inevitably bankrupt the nation. Lastly, there must be a reversal of JFK’s 1962 previously mentioned executive order.
Hey, how about wage (and price?) controls and you can start by controlling the government workers’ wages by tying them in to some as yet to be determined rate of something. They don’t need liberty, they need to be reined in, especially the ballooning pensions. BUT, there is a reason that NO administration has shrunk the Federal Government since…Jefferson? and then he blew all those tax dollars on the damned Louisiana Purchase. People want the services, and when push came to shove and the Newties tried to shut down the government, they lost big time. Tea-partiers have this gut feeling that there is too much spending, the deficits are too high, and they clearly are, but I see no way that spending will actually come down, no matter who is elected except for the stopping of stimulus and bailouts at some point.
Seriously, you need some well-thought-out ways to control spending, especially when it comes to all public employees. I haven’t anything plausible yet.
“…especially when it comes to all public employees.”
We can only hope that you are overly pessimistic. The country cannot be saved unless the government employees are brought under control. They have probably already destroyed California. Which state will be next?
21. I’m sure they told the abolitionists the same thing. No, eventually we’ll get enough idealists at once, even if they are soon corrupted or defeated, to ban the abomination. The alternative is that the country will be destroyed.
Historically, what works best is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. Slightly democratic. That way the President can veto legislation and not be to concerned with having his veto overridden.
This works best because Congress-critters can do earmarks to keep their supporters happy, knowing that the Pres has their back and will veto the bill. That means they can turn to the ones that gave them the brides….excuse me, campaign contributions, and say, “I did what you paid me to and POTUS screwed it up”. That way they can keep the bribe…. eh, campaign contribution.
Graft and corruption are what keep the gears of gubbermint lubricated. Unfortunately too much over revs those gears and causes the machine to fly apart. That is what we have now.
Bush didn’t quite understand this and didn’t veto anything during his first term. So all those wild promises made by the Congress-critters were kept. The system wasn’t designed to survive such a shock.
Now the Usurper is in the same position. So EVERY subcontractor worth his powerpoint is busy selling 10 cent widgets to the gubbermint for a million a pop. The Congress-critters have to promise to deliver the goods to keep those campaign contributions (bribes?) coming in.
Most of the people involved have egos larger then their brains and no morals to speak of. Stealing as much as they can becomes the only reason they run for office. Both Parties are the same in this regard. It looks like the voters are getting worked up to try a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. We will see how that works.
If it works OK we can do it again in oh’12 by voting Mitt into the White House. It would be a replay of the post ’94 Clinton administration since Mitt is not any different politically then Clinton.
“If you liked Clinton, vote for Mitt” would be a great campaign slogan. One that both sides could run with a straight face.
Overall, an excellent article, almost old school PJM. I just have one question.
While researching it, did you look at the saving from the Post Soviet collapse and the reductions in military spending it brought.
I have seen various opinions, ranging from it wasn’t enough to matter to the theory that most of the tech driving the Dot.com bubble was spin off from military research. The latter claim was that without the collapse of the Soviet Union, the networking which drove the dot.com bubble would have stayed in the Military.
After all, the WWW and all modern digital communications are spin-offs from DARPA projects to create a CCC system that would survive a nuclear exchange.
So In Your Opinion, how much of the Clinton prosperity is derived from the Reagan inspired collapse of the Soviet Union?
30. Why should we settle for disrupting graft and corruption when we can attack the system that enables it? Pass the Fair Tax and not less than half the lobbyists become superfluous. Huckabee 2012.