By Noralyn Dudt
Merriam-Webster
defines gridlock as a traffic jam in which a grid of intersecting streets is so
completely congested that no vehicular movement is possible. The grid is
locked... no one can move... everyone stays in place.
In the same way, gridlock in government occurs when both houses
of Congress cannot agree on going forward on a particular issue. The government
then is literally going nowhere. In United States politics, gridlock frequently
refers to occasions when the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled
by different parties, or by a different
party than the party of the president. Gridlock may also occur within the
Senate, when no party has a filibuster-proof majority.
A primary cause of gridlock is the filibuster rule in Senate,
which calls for a supermajority of 60 senators to bring a bill to the floor.
The Congress and Senate cannot agree....
In many ways, gridlock is endemic to our national politics, the natural consequence of separated
institutions sharing and competing for power.
Casual observers of Washington recognize tremendous variation in
Congress' performance. At times,
congressional prowess is stunning. The Great Society Congress under Lyndon
Johnson, for example, enacted landmark health care, environment, civil rights, transportation, and education statutes ( to name a few) At
other times, gridlock prevails, as when in 1992, congressional efforts to cut
the capital gains tax and to reform lobbying,
campaign finance, banking, parental leave, and voters registration laws
( to name a few) ended in deadlock.
Although they have no formal role in Congressional negotiations,
the President often acts as a dealmaker-in-chief, shepherding a bill's through
Congress and probing members of Congress to determine how they are inclined to
vote. For example, the Affordable Care
Act required months of negotiations, in
which President Obama met with conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans
in order to coax a 60-vote Senate majority.
Members of Congress with moderate views can be derailed by those
whose views are either ultra-right or ultra left. Moderate members then can get
extremely frustrated with the system and decide to quit. Sadly, that's exactly
what is happening. Ultimately, we are
left with those 2 groups of ultra-right and ultra left. They can argue and
debate a case or an issue forever and ever and the whole country is at their
mercy.
This is a situation that is happening in democratic countries
especially in the West. It's in this political climate that citizens become
disenchanted with their democratically-elected representatives. A breeding
ground for distrust and suspicions that can easily usher a demagogue, one who
promises to fix all that is broken. History tells us that in the end, a dictator this demagogue becomes, and what was supposed to be freedom from the
effects of government gridlock turns into an endless series of wrong turns. A
cycle that perhaps only can be broken when citizens choose leaders who do not
pander to ideological whims. Citizens who are well-informed and a government
who fosters critical thinking skills would be the ideal tool to break such a
vicious cycle. Too idealistic perhaps? But when we are at a dead-end street,
it's certainly worth trying.
Noralyn Onto Dudt, a
resident of the Washington DC area considers herself fortunate to have the
"front row seat" in watching how government policies are formulated.