gridlock

How about a Gridlock Party?  A political party, but not for politicians -- for voters. 

What if there was a movement that sought to keep the government so conflicted it couldn't pass anything but the most essential bills?  After all, if you believe government should be doing only the bare minimum, then what better way to start than a government structurally incapable of doing more?

Remember, Bill Clinton's "surplus" was also Newt Gingrich's surplus.  Since all spending must originate in the House of Representatives, I'd like to see a House that's ideologically opposed to big government.  And then a Senate and/or a White House that's ideologically opposed to the House, making it damned near impossible to get anything enacted.

Of course, this is quite different from a Congress with a Republican agenda.  Yes, I'd rather have the GOP in charge than the Democrats, but what I really want is a government so filled with in-fighting that it couldn't climb out of Grover Norquist's bathtub.  I'd like a government that can't even agree on what the agenda is. 

Naturally, this would require strategically putting liberals into positions where they would whine a lot.  I'm not normally inclined to vote for Democrats, but I do think their ideas need to be voiced -- and properly ridiculed -- in the public forum.

Basically, I'd like to see the types of arguments the Republicans in the Senate raised against healthcare being used against every big government idea -- and used by a caucus with the power to reject them.  And I'd like to see it all done in government with just enough Democrats to reject big Republican government schemes as well.

When the Constitution's checks and balances don't go far enough -- or when they've been discarded -- let the voters institute some checks and balances of their own.

Comments

[Hank Rearden]

Good idea; I've often said that there needs to be checks and balances within the checks and balances. Although, "gridlock" has such a negative connotation. How about the "essential" party. As in, "a party that limits government to the bare essentials". Oh wait, that's the Libertarian party. Too bad they're so ineffectual.

[privateer]

About the only time I have been happy with the .gov of the Peoples Democratic Republic of New Yawk in the last 20 years was last summer. The NYS Senate was "gridlocked". The State "lost" a several million $$$ of tax revenue because certain tax increases did not get passed for a while ;-)

I was thinking to myself, wouldnt that be awesome at the federal level? So only stuff that really mattered to all parties would move forward.

I dont like to mess with the Constitution too much, but maybe we should amend it it so that all laws require a 75% vote in both houses.

That and "sunsets clauses".

Maybe then they would be so bogged down keeping a few good laws, they wont have time to gen up new ones.

I know it wont happen.
And I am terrified of what might actually come out of a Constitutional Convention, given the current level of understanding of history and the Constitution, especially by our current lawmakers.

But a guy can dream cant he?

[John Galt]

"So only stuff that really mattered to all parties would move forward."

= "Common good."

[Cloudbuster]

Heh, I've long been a champion of inefficient gridlocked government. A government that can't manage to get anything done is a government that's not doing much harm. If a government actually manages to be efficient, it invariably becomes efficient at stripping your rights and emptying your pocketbook.

[d957]

This "gridlock" solution would be easily accomplished by repealing the 435 seat limit in the house. If we return to the original representative to citizen ratio established in article one section one. "not to exceed one for every thirty-thousand..." A house with almost 10,000 members would be hopelessly gridlocked.

[A. Freeman]

I'm ready to join.

Gridlocked is an antonym to progressive, it's a great word in my book.

In addition to second-hander actions like voting, what kind of first-hand non-violent, non-destructive actions can be taken? Pay day-laborers and homeless to wander the capitol steps? Have them take numbers at the DMV, stand in line and then say "I've changed my mind" when it's their turn? Take all the pens and applications at the welfare office? Drive circular routes around the state capitol at 5 miles an hour?

The tea-party concept can be adapted to our cause: this time it's our national property, let's not destroy it. Let's cause the motor of the government to seize up except for the essential "commonly" desirable public services.

* * *

America this year is now listed as a "mostly free" economy. We are no longer a nation of free enterprise..

http://www.heritage.org/Index

* * *

The motor of the motor city is stopping.

http://www.marchandmeffre.com/detroit/index.html

[privateer]

d957, I like the theory.

But the flip side is this might give the population centers (NY/CHI/LA/SF/SEA/BOS)even MORE power?

I would need to see the math on how this would work out before I signed up for that.

For example, of NY states 29 congressional districts, 1-18 are the New York Metro area, and are all essentially "blue". The much publicized 23rd makes up a HUGE chunk of the state, is @ 3 times larger than 1-18 combined.

Not saying it would not be better.
But it might make it frying pan->fire.

[d957]

Privateer, your point is well taken. In your example, the NY metro area may go from Districts 1-18 to 1-1800 but I’m quite certain that there are numerous areas of NY metro comprised of more conservative minded voters. With the smaller districts, it stands to reason that some of these voting areas would be less likely to have there votes diluted by the surrounding liberal areas. Not to mention the possibility of increasing the electoral power of other voting blocks like Libertarian, Socialist Party, Green Party and improving the chances for Independent candidates. This kind of diversity would surely produce a gridlock effect with so many differing ideologies competing to shape and influence legislation. Even the current Democrat Caucus is shaky at best due to differing ideologies within the caucus (extreme liberal/progressive vs. blue dogs). It seems reasonable that a larger and more diverse House would amplify the situation.

I admit that I have not studied this idea in depth and from all possible angles, and if studied further your observation may well prove to be the more likely result. I’m just offering an idea for us to kick around.