In any case, I’m sure we can agree it’s a misnomer, Billy. The state is never "gridlocked," but merely possesses more or less political resistance or support at various times, places, and circumstances.
But I’d say the last five years have been unprecedented (well, since LBJ, anyway) in terms of any real political resistance, except that having to do with killing bad guys. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you about the massive increases in domestic programs, or this and this. He threatens vetoes but never carries out such threats, so as to perpetuate the fraud that he’s exercising real discretion, given the nature of the thing as it is. Oh, that’s right. He did have a moment of "principled" restraint, ’cause, y’know, ‘people ought not be forced pay for values they abhor;’ so he vetoes stem-cell research. I’ve got no problem with that (veto everything), but again, it was a fraud because it was done for the sake of his loony religious beliefs and not any objective principle.
Surely this is a runaway train, so I just don’t really see how you could think that the democrats getting the House, Senate, or both could possibly make it any worse. How? Sure, the democrats are going to eventually get hold of things and raise taxes, but that’s all just a shell game anyway (boom/bust). It’s hard to imagine them making government bigger that the all-time record set by Bush and his republican-held House and Senate.
I’m just finding it real difficult to understand what exactly will be worse, and why. I’m certainly not saying it would be better, but I just can’t really understand the hand wringing (not you; in general) over the potential for net democrat wins this time around.
I think John Lopez gets it right in that link right above.
Beck implies that the Democrats will bring some sort of special evil to
the table if they get elected. The problem with that idea is that this
election, like all before it, will be an “unprecedented disaster”
simply because whoever wins will have more power and a more-cowed populace than any of their predecessors, and they will in turn use
those things to create more of the same. A majoritarian democratic
government is controlled by positive feedback…
More government interference in individuals’ lives leads to more
clamoring for interference which leads to more elections won by those
who promise government interference which leads to more interference.
Repeat enough times, and soon enough, everyone is either a jailer, or
And we are heading just there. Beck’s implicit claim that the
Democrats will be worse is like arguing over which brand of gasoline
will make the fire worse – you might be right, but it doesn’t matter in
the context. The fire’s going to be plenty bad enough no matter which
one gets poured on it.
The problem with pouring gasoline on a fire isn’t making sure that
you choose the one with an anti-knock additive, and the problem with
this election isn’t the Democrats. The problem with this election is
I don’t see how you can argue one wit with that, Billy.