On Maintaining Gridlock

The only compelling argument I heard for a McCain Presidency during the past election cycle want that his Republicanism could potentially thwart a Democrat dominated Congress and Supreme Court. This, of course, was a silly proposition that was only a little better than the one Democrats made when John Kerry was running- that anyone was better than Bush. Neither one was very convincing, and it just goes to show that one needs a solid argument FOR their own candidacy rather than AGAINST their opponent.

Unless, of course, you happen to be running for a Senate seat in Georgia or Minnesota this year. Because if you're a Republican running for reelection in either one of those states, this particular argument works just fine.

"Republicans need to win this election, or they'll be giving Obama a filibuster-proof Senate" is a theme and variation that I've heard from the mouths of almost every single commentator on almost every major news network over the past few days. Nothing particularly compelling has been mentioned about the belief systems or voting record of the four men who have been running- simply a polarizing blanket of Democrat vs. Republican.

"I vote for gridlock every time," a professor told me a few year ago during his economics class. "There's nothing worse that unopposed politicians in Washington. I'll do everything I can to see that they have to fight for every decision they make and ever law they try to pass."

It sounded like lunacy at the time, but as the years pass by, I've witnessed the dangers of unchecked power and I'm becoming more and more apt to agree with him. The balance of power needs to be maintained.

Here are two reasons why it's a good idea to maintain as much partisanship as possible in our government.

1. Gridlock means that only the best laws are passed.In order to pass a bill through a bi-partisan (or multi-partisan) Congress, it needs to be one that can be agreed to by a variety of viewpoints and ideologies. It has to be good enough that counterpoints can be appeased and it needs to be written in such a way that it finds consensus by opposing forces. In a filibuster-proof Congress, this isn't necessarily the case. When one party gets too much of a majority, a lot more legislation goes through, but it doesn't need to be honed and perfected. It simply won't meet with opposition and so it doesn't need to be held to high standards.

2. Gridlock means that less laws are passed.
I've gotta be honest, I rarely want MORE legistlation. We have so many laws in this country already and I doubt that new ones are going to fix our problems. Laws usually inhibit and restrain. The only inhibition and restraint that needs to take place is from the people toward their government- not the other way around (at least, that's what our founding fathers came up with). A government in gridlock means that less laws are passed each year which usually means that freedom wins for another few sessions.

While it's usually a rather weak argument to vote in a candidate simply because he's from a certain party or ideology, in this particular case it's probably a good idea. Even if the people in office agree with you completely, they need to be kept in check by opposing viewpoints to that change doesn't happen too fast.

Change is good, obviously. But too much, too fast could interrupt the continuity of our country and ruin us quickly.