Vote For Gridlock

[Lemur]

Yet another conservative who has come to believe in divided government. Will we now be hearing that Bruce Bartlett is a liberal? or a RINO?

Beginning of article, rest is under spoil tag:

A Vote for Gridlock

By Bruce Bartlett
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

As we move into the campaign homestretch, Republicans and their talk radio friends are doing everything they can to browbeat every last right-leaning voter into pulling the Republican lever one more time. Failure to do so, they tell us over and over again, will bring untold misery -- higher taxes, terrorist attacks, gay marriage, cloning or whatever else gets the yahoos to the polls.

Well, this is one Republican who has never voted for a Democrat in his life who will do so this year for the first time. I will cast my inaugural Democratic vote in the sincere belief that continued Republican control of both houses of Congress and the White House is not in the national interest and is harmful to the conservative agenda I have worked all my life to implement.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is critical to remember that the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected a parliamentary form of government. In such systems, the prime minister is elected by the legislature. Therefore, the head of government will necessarily always have a majority in the legislature.

The Founding Fathers thought such a system would make it too easy for undesirable legislation with merely transitory popularity to become law. Conversely, it would be too easy to change existing laws when party control reversed. Instead, they favored a system in which it was hard to pass legislation, thus preventing the enactment of bad laws and giving policy changes more permanence.

This would be accomplished, the Founding Fathers thought, by having the president and the legislature elected by very different methods and various other devices, such as staggering terms for senators. They knew that by doing so there was not only the possibility but the likelihood that Congress and the White House would be under the control of different parties much of the time.

The postwar era is a good example. We've had unified government -- one-party control of the executive and legislative branches -- in 26 years and divided government, where one party was in a position to check the other, in 35 years. Most often, this involved a Democratic Congress and a Republican president. But we also saw a Republican Congress and a Democratic president from 1994 to 2000.

I think the American people like divided government. They don't trust either party to run the whole show and believe deeply in the separation of powers that the Founding Fathers established in the Constitution. To most people, dividing government by political party is just another way of separating power.

Bill Niskanen of the Cato Institute points out that every war in American history that lasted more than a few weeks was authorized by a unified government. It's also worth noting that every major entitlement program -- the spending programs that are bankrupting the country -- was enacted by unified governments.

Party loyalists on both sides argue that unified government is required to get things done. But what if government is doing bad things? Getting more done is not desirable -- a "do-nothing" Congress would be far better.

I believe that the good economic times of the late 1990s resulted largely from gridlock -- Democrat Bill Clinton couldn't get his plans through a Republican Congress and he blocked its initiatives. So for a blessed six years government was basically on automatic pilot. The result was budget surpluses instead of deficits, low unemployment, high wages and a skyrocketing stock market. Who wouldn't go back to those times if we could? Bringing back gridlock could to the trick.

At the same time, gridlock was no barrier to the passage of genuinely popular legislation, such as welfare reform, or the confirmation of well-qualified judges. One reason welfare reform worked so well, in my opinion, is that both parties had a stake in it. If Republicans had rammed it into law without a Democratic president's endorsement, Democrats in the bureaucracy and at the state and local level might have felt that it was illegitimate and sabotaged its implementation, making it a failure instead of a success.

Columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum also notes that divided government often helps the passage of legislation with broad support that is opposed by special interests. Neither party will want responsibility for killing it, and so they both push it forward. If one party were shut out of power, however, it would be easier for it to oppose even an overwhelmingly popular measure out of sheer partisanship.

In short, when I vote Democratic next week for the first time in my life, what I am really voting for is gridlock. I am not voting for the Democratic Party's policies, most of which I still oppose. Rather, I am voting for change, congressional oversight and White House accountability. I am voting against Republican corruption and out-of-control spending. If that takes putting Democrats in charge of Congress, then so be it.

[drone]

Amen.

[Vladimir]

Really, you're from Wisconsin; don't try to fool this Midwesterner. You're also confusing party with ideology. Yes, if Democrats take over the legislature they will try to raise taxes. When it comes to terrorism, they'll try to revive the Clinton era policies that brought us incrementally bigger and better terrorist attacks, isolationism, and the blame America first attitude. You have a problem with them referencing gay marriage? It's called stimulating their base. The base is what contributes money and money is necessary during election time. Even if they do take control however, chances are someone is going to pull a veto pen out of his ass and hand it to the president.

If you really think this is a problem on the Republican side look to the left. What are they doing to stimulate their base? Start with Connecticut where they forced their moderate senator to run as a moderate to appease them. Look also at how Lieberman is doing. He was rejected because of party politics but voters of his state are supporting him (or at least they were, I don't have new info). As far as your first time voting Democrat, sorry, I don't believe it. Maybe it's your first time voting and you'll cast that vote for a Democrat but I've heard the same statement countless times.

Everyone complains, and rightly so, about politicians. Again this is the case where Democracy doesn't solve all our problems, it just prevents the worst of them. Look at the alternatives from a negative perspective: Who would you least like to lead the house, some fat man from the South or some whacked out lib from the most leftist part of the country?

[drone]

I think you're missing the point. First of all, this is an article written by a conservative, not Lemur's opinion. Second, he doesn't want Democrats to control everything, he's just saying there needs to be a speedbump in the process. One party rule is inherently bad, it leads to bad laws and runaway government. A government that does nothing is the best, unless there is a great need in which case both parties will work together to address this need. Just because Nancy Pelosi takes over the House doesn't mean she can get anything done. She would still have to deal with a GOP Senate, or a potential veto from the president. Nothing outrageous will get through that gauntlet.

[Lemur]

Vladimir, as Drone pointed out, I am not the author of the essay. I would think that even the most cursory read of the post would make that clear.

If you're fine with one-party rule, and you think that's best for our country, you're more than entitled to that opinion. I'm just happy that more and more real conservatives are seeing it for the trap it is.

[Proletariat]

I'm all for it. We've had nothing but Republican rule for more than enough time for them to show their value, and it's been a pathetic failure. I'm not gonna bother to vote, because I'll be damned if I vote for the party of 'We aren't them!' or the party of 'We're not actually what we're billed as, either.'

[Xiahou]

*cough* vote 3rd party *cough* ahem... excuse me

[lars573]

This guy proved he's talking out of his arse with the one paragraph.

It is critical to remember that the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected a parliamentary form of government. In such systems, the prime minister is elected by the legislature. Therefore, the head of government will necessarily always have a majority in the legislature.

He knows nothing about how a parlimentary government works. The head of state (sovergin or president) asks (this term would vary depending on how the constitution is written) the leader of the majority party to form a government. They are only elected to sit in their parlimentary seat.


Also the French though up a better term. Rather than "gridlock" they say "co-habitation". It also has a less than positive connotation. That the cost of having the PM and President at odds out wight any gains.

[Lemur]

Here's another essay by a conservative about the state of affairs in one-party land. Vladimir, just to be clear: I am not the author of the article below.

Frank Schaeffer: I should be supporting Allen. Instead, I'm leaving the party.

07:52 AM CST on Wednesday, November 1, 2006

I'm a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican.

On all those counts, I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that's being circulated by campaign supporters of Republican George Allen, who's trying to retain his Senate seat in Virginia.

The message goes like this: "First, it was the Catholic priests, then it was Mark Foley, and now Jim Webb, whose sleazy novels discuss sex between very young teenagers. ... Hmmm, sounds like a perverted pedophile to me! Pass the word that we do not need any more pedophiles in office."Democrat James Webb is a war hero and former Marine, wounded in Vietnam and winner of the Navy Cross. He was writing about class and military issues long before me and has articulated the issue of how the elites have dropped the ball on military service in his classic novel Fields of Fire. By the way, that's a book Tom Wolfe calls "the greatest of the Vietnam novels."

Mr. Webb's son is a Marine in Iraq. That's an uncommon fact in this era in which most political leaders' children act as if it is only right and proper that it's someone else's war to fight.

Mr. Webb also happens to be running against a desperate opponent supported by people who circulated the stupid e-mail, something that reminds me of a 2000 smear campaign aimed at another war hero, John McCain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I never served in the military. It was my son's unexpected volunteering that connects me to the military family and to my country. And I've been voting Republican for years. My late father – Dr. Francis Schaeffer – was an evangelical theologian, friend to Jerry Falwell and White House guest of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and the first President Bush.

I have nice handwritten letters from various members of the Bush family, including Barbara, thanking me for my books on military service. So I have every reason to stay in the Republicans' good graces. (It's nice to be complimented on television by the First Lady.)

But enough is enough. I've had it with Republican smears.

The Webb e-mail is the embodiment of the cynical Republican strategists, some of whom must know the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Was Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder?

According to the Allen camp's logic, God would be a pedophile, too. After all, we Christians believe God inspired the Bible. And God-the-author chose to include the "sleazy" story about Lot offering to send out his young virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom.

The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies.

Lucky for God-the-author that He's not running against George Allen.

I just got back from a visit to Parris Island and was struck again – as I was on the proud day of my son's boot camp graduation there as a Marine in 1999 – by the moral credibility of the drill instructors and selflessness of the recruits.

Our political leaders should learn from them. In fact, our future leaders should be them. We need to compare today's leaders to those of the past, who earned credibility beyond the reach of cynicism and irony – and cheap smear tactics.

People like Mr. McCain – who is "for" the war in Iraq – and Mr. Webb – who is "against" the war – should be respected no matter one's politics or ideas about the war. Why? Because they paid their dues.

My wife and I have reached the tipping point. We plan to go to town hall to dump our Republican voter registration and reregister as independents. I don't care anymore what party someone is in. These days, what I care about is what they're made of.

Wartime demands leaders with character and moral authority. The political party smearing Mr. Webb proves it has neither.

[Vladimir]

Oh no! Everything I belive is based on a lie . Oops, oh well. Breaking up the article threw me off.

I'm sorr...no, wait: I deeply apoligize to those who might have taken offense to my comments. I simply mistated a joke, the real ones who owe an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (Lemur ) who mislead me. My remark was mearly a botched joke against the President and was taken out of context!

[Lemur]

Well, if we're going to go that route, you're going to get a lot of airplay for two days, but now you'll never get to be President.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The head of state (sovergin or president) asks (this term would vary depending on how the constitution is written) the leader of the majority party to form a government.

I think he's refering to the fact that the majority party elects their own leader, who is then invariably made Prime Minister. Perhaps the way he expresses it isn't technically correct, but it fairly closely parallels how it actually works.

[Divinus Arma]

*cough* vote 3rd party *cough* ahem... excuse me

Only if you are a leftist liberal. Anyone else should vote down party lines. Especially for Mark Foley and Tom DeLay, since their names are on the ballot against their will and they aren't even running.

ONLY FOUR MORE DAYS!!!!I don't know about all of you, but I will have a case of beer, a few friends, and a bunch of snacks while I watch the game all day and all night on my big screen TV. I even have a big "we're #1" hand and an Elephant hat. My team is going to bring it and smash the Jackasses with a victory upset that will stun the nation. Out turnout machine will prevail over the mass media tool of the left.

NOVEMBER 7TH: The Showdown

[Lemur]

My team is going to bring it and smash the Jackasses with a victory upset that will stun the nation. Out turnout machine will prevail over the mass media tool of the left.

Dude, you are so pumped!

[edit]

That is to say, your G.O.P. has real, ultimate power!

[Goofball]

Aside from maddox, that may be the coolest website I have ever visited. The only thing cooler than being a pirate, is being a ninja.

[Lemur]

Just had to share this quote:

People in power simply can’t be trusted. If we’re going to have a Republican executive branch, we need a Democratic legislature to hold its feet to the fire. And vice-versa. So on Tuesday, I’m neither voting Democratic or Republican. I’m voting for the oldest party in the republic. Its name never appears on the ballot, but it’s always there and it has always served us well. Divided government.

Millions of other independents and moderates around America are going to do the same - along, I suspect, with millions of genuine conservatives who recognize that divided government would be far more “conservative” than the New Dixiecrats currently running the GOP down in Washington.

Real conservatives, after all, believe in smaller government, lower spending, balanced budgets, individual freedom, checks and balances, political restraint, states’ rights, a prudent foreign policy, and a deep respect for the Constitution. Seen any of that recently?

[Divinus Arma]

I would prefer the breakdown of the Democratic party where the liberal point of view is removed to the sidelines of history. Then I would like to see the formation of multiple parties within the United States so that the electorate has a political system as diverse as they are.

[lars573]

Which would include a liberal party of some kind.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which would include a liberal party of some kind.

We would still have one. Their called republicans.