I’ve heard this line about Republicans being “obstructionist” thrown out again recently. First of all, Democrats are the king of obstruction. Secondly, good for them. I wish the Republicans would take a page or two out of their book.

Compromise is not a goal. It’s a strategy. The goal is to do what is best for the country, and when both sides are so fundamentally at odds, sometimes you can’t find middle ground (and so often that middle ground is “fine, we’ll only roll back our liberties a little bit“).

I don’t want cooperation. I want to win.


4 thoughts on “Gridlock

  1. I guess I’m a little confused. Don’t get me wrong, there are many issues that there is not a middle ground that can be agreed upon. Also, the joke now is that compromise used to be making both sides get something they want, now its about making both sides have nothing they want. However, I don’t see why “grid lock” is really a thing to aspire too, nor exactly how the Democrats are are kings of it. When compared to Democrats, Republicans are much more consistent in their ideas and have a much stronger party unity.Trying to get Democrats to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats. Sure, you may be able to get them to agree to move in the same direction every once in a while, but its not really something that’s consistent.

    • I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to the Democratic leadership enough! But I’m not going to argue on that point.

      I WILL defend gridlock, though. The constitution was designed to have the different branches working against each other. When people bemoan the lack of unified government, they’re forgetting that the founders didn’t want an all-powerful government! Sometimes an oppositional Congress is the only means for a people to check an out of control president (or vice versa). It’s a natural part of American politics.

      • No, I agree that the three branches are meant to be a keep each other in check, but that’s not the gird lock that seems to be happening, instead its primarily based upon party lines (not inherently bad, but it is a different entity). I guess, I’m fine that they disagree, but they need to try and work on issues that there is a possible middle ground solution to. Most of what I’ve seen has been one party blocking something because it was made by the other party, or one side refusing to back down on certain beliefs of their party. I would like gridlock more if it actually forced both sides to try and make there be a solution that would be agreed upon by both parties (when possible). Don’t get me wrong, there are some cases of compromise that, with hindsight were pretty bad. However, it is arguable that that most of these time they were “better” than what one side really wanted.

      • I think there’s a fundamental ideological issue that causes both sides to disagree, not just because it’s one side or the other. And unless one party is willing to part with its core principles, we can and will have gridlock. I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing, though. I would rather nothing happen than for both parties to compromise in a way that hurts the country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s