Last night I watched all the different news programs. I even watched MSNBC for a while if you can believe it. All of the media at one point or another bemoaned that the Republican gains would mean GRIDLOCK!!!!! Oh Nooooooooooo.
But I’ll admit it, I am a pro-gridlock American. Is that wrong to say? I don’t think so mainly because I believe one of the biggest problems America has is the government. The only thing I can hope for while Barack Obama is President is to put a stop to his GROW THE GOVERNMENT plans. That’s all. Isn’t gridlock what the American people really voted for last night. Didn’t they ask the GOP to put the brakes on the government last night?
Maybe that’s something many in the media don’t get. The difference between the parties isn’t just two rival gangs that hate each other even though they can’t remember why. It really is a clash of philosophies. One believes that the answer to many problems is more government while the other believes that less government is usually the answer. One believes in the right to kill the unborn, the other doesn’t. These are pretty fundamental issues so I don’t see how anything but gridlock is possible unless one side makes a move toward the other. And let’s face it, after this election there’s little chance the Republicans will start voting for tax increases or new spending programs mainly because they know they’re on double secret probation with the Tea Partiers who will start a new political party if they get all wobbly. And does anyone see Obama tacking to the center? I don’t.
The best I can hope for is gridlock. I’m a pro-gridlock American. You?
November 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I am definitely a pro-gridlock American! We may not have taken the Senate, but last night was a huge victory, IMHO! 🙂
November 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I'm with you… gridlock means time for debate, maybe time to READ legislation before it is passed, and at least a chance that common sense will be heard. What we saw, I think, is that one party can NEVER be in control of both the executive and legislative branches…
November 3, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Better gridlock than to cruise on the highway to hell.
November 3, 2010 at 1:44 pm
First, do no evil. If this means gridlock, I say bring it on.
November 3, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Count me in!! I am praying that the spell has been broken. But I am still very distrustful of the Republicans and their taste in presidential candidates. If they even consider another John McCain (or anyone remotely like him) then the pendulum will surely swing back to the Liberals. We've started something, I hope we finish it well!!
November 3, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I think this shows that the American people like gridlock too; when two philosophoies are so at odds and start to clash into people's own lives, one has to come out on top. It is Christianity vs. Chaos theory. I am by no means saying one party is Christians and the other is heathens. I am simply saying that there comes a time when the country has to decide what is best and at this point, the party that stands for less government, less tolerance for infantcide and a demand for more personal responsibility seems to have the gridlock and that makes me pro-gridlock too!
November 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I've ALWAYS been pro-gridlock. I also agree with the (John)Stossel Proposal: For every new law enacted, FIVE old ones must be repealed.
Regards,
November 3, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Gridlock is good.
November 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm
"The most sensible request we make of government is not 'Do something!' but 'Quit it!'"
– P.J. O'Rourke
November 3, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Gridlock is good it will either force comprimise or so discredit our political system that we might actually vote in third parties next time.
Also Matthew the parties are the same in that they have the same end. Both are seeking freedom as the highest value, the republicans seek freedom up front, while democrats wish to make it possible through governmental programs for all to have their needs provided for so that they can be free. In the repub method some will be oppressed because business and the rich have so much freedom, in the dem method some will be oppressed by the govt. Either way they oppress some in order to achieve freedom.
In this way they are both Classical Liberals taking after the philosophy of Locke, Kant and others. That is why there is no real ideological difference, they are just different sides to the same coin.
Catholic ethics is based upon what brings the greatest flourishing happiness, this is the whole point of Thomas Aquinas' ethics. Our political philosophy should embrace this as the end (because the truest flourishing happiness is heaven). Neither party does, so neither is worth much of anything to me.
November 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm
GRIDLOCK- YES! maybe then they won't do much….
November 3, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I'm absolutely not pro-gridlock. Gridlock is not a compromise, not a space for discussion and deliberation. Gridlock is when discussion and deliberation have failed and the two sides are simply entrenched.
I am pro-cooperation. I dislike both our major parties and find that when they are forced to cooperate, the results are better than when either are allowed to race down their own particular highways to hell.
However, if we are not to have cooperation and reasoned discourse, gridlock is better than one party getting free-reign.
November 3, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Gridlock on the interstate = bad.
Gridlock in Congress = good. America has put the caution signs up and reduced traffic to one lane. Now the real road work can begin.
November 3, 2010 at 5:27 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
November 3, 2010 at 6:22 pm
With you. The less the government does, the better for us all.
November 3, 2010 at 8:02 pm
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
* Gideon J. Tucker in Final Accounting in the Estate of A. B. (1866)
November 3, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Gridlock: It's what the Founders intended.
A story: A delegation from Eastern Europe came to Washington in the 1990s to study our constitutional government. They asked a Congressional staffer why we have only two parties. The staffer replied:
"I don't why, but we have two parties: a Stupid Party and an Evil Party. I am proud to be a member of the Stupid Party. Sometimes they get together and do something stupid and evil. We call that 'bipartisanship.'"
November 4, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I'm for Gridlock until we can finish electing other officials that can decrease government to 18th century size, which is incredible small by todays standards.
Further, in case it hasn’t fully sunk into the minds of Obama and the Democrats
No more compromising deals behind closed doors.
No more compromising bailouts in times of manufactured crisis.
No more compromising conservative principles for D.C. party elites.
No more compromising the American economy for left-wing special interests.
No more compromising transparency and ethics for bureaucratic self-preservation.
AND finally let us be crystal clear, You can take your olive branch and shove it!!
November 4, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Would that we would actually get gridlock. We won't. Despite the firings of the Supreme Court Justices in Ohio(?), the judiciary will continue to do their damage. Stay hungry.
November 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I'm for gridlock. I have been for a long time. Bipartisanship usually means "cave in and side with us." I'm not for it. People elect certain people for a reason. They want those elected to stick to their principles.