Gridlock threatens nation's well-being

It seems more and more observers of the national political scene are starting to realize the devastating effect on the future of our citizens due to irrational partisan gridlock.

There seemed to be a glimmer of optimism developing recently when the Republican leadership hosted President Barack Obama for a question-and-answer session on his policies and goals. The problem is the president did so well in that setting that many predicted the GOP would never do it again.

This week Obama invited Republicans to meet with him for a televised discussion on health care reform options. Seems simple enough, doesn't it? Not so fast -- the Republican leadership countered with a list of pre-event demands that bordered on the ridiculous. All this in response to a basic invitation to sit down and discuss policy. It's not as though they were being asked to negotiate with a foreign enemy.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said this week most great nations eventually suffer a downfall that is both "grand and tragic," in the fashion of the Roman Empire.

But Krugman notes America may instead decline with a whimper, over a political system that not only encourages, but virtually demands, gridlock.

Following the recent U.S. Senate win by Scott Brown in Massachusetts, some pundits were led to conclude "The Republicans now hold a 41-59 majority in the Senate."

The humorous point is well-taken -- given the rules by which the Senate operates, nothing substantive can take place without 60 votes. Gridlock reigns.

Individual Senators now can hold hostage any legislation or appointments and they are doing just that on a regular basis.

Krugman said the Congressional Research Service noted such actions were used sparingly in the past when the Senate was ruled by "traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity and accommodation." But those were the good old days when the word "compromise" actually had positive connotations.

"The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government," Krugman writes. "Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session."

Both parties are responsible for the current state of paralysis -- and the American people also hold some of the blame. Increasingly, as a nation, we are isolating ourselves into partisan camps that are divisive, mean-spirited and non-productive.

"While Americans can justifiably point a finger at both parties for any gridlock and failure to achieve bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems, part of the problem rests with the American people themselves," writes columnist Joseph Lazzaro.

"That's because voters, once again, appear to be applying the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers doctrine (co-equal executive and legislative branches of government) to the political parties, as well. Distrustful of both parties, voters seem to think they can "balance them out," or "check their vices" by putting one party in control of one branch, and the other party in control of the other. That way, the parties can keep an eye on each other.

"In theory, it can work out that way. But what Americans overlook is that for two-party governance to succeed, there must be mutual compromise and shared sacrifice. Without that, the result is divided government. And gridlock."

As a nation, we are all now paying the price for the elevation of raw political power, "know-nothingism," rigidity of perspective and an unwillingness to work together. The loser is any concept of tackling our greatest national problems through common sense, intelligence and goodwill.

--REK