We often hear complaints about government gridlock and wonder why our leaders can’t get anything done. With opposing parties, the filibuster, the veto, swing votes and on and on, you might think our founding-fathers actually designed for gridlock as part of the government structure. If you think that, then you would be right. The basic contribution of gridlock is to provide stability.
Our government representatives believe their main purpose in life is to pass laws and spend tax money. In fact, their success is often judged by the number of laws they can sponsor and pass or the amount of money each can deliver to their home state or district. Great for them, but bad for us. Some kind of slowing of this process is critical if a democracy or in our case a republic is to survive.
It is often a good idea to vote for a mix of government that promotes the greatest amount of gridlock. I’ll admit it looks ugly when seen in action, but our founding-father’s main consideration was to create a government that best serves the citizens and not a system where citizens serve the government.
So the next time you hear “government gridlock” portrayed as a bad thing, just remember that it is one of the checks and balances our forefathers deemed necessary to slow down government intrusion in your life and mine.