The case for gridlock

It might be a bit late in the game for my liking, but I'm glad to see that McCain is finally raising what I think is the best argument in his favor:

ALBUQUERQUE (Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee John McCain , trailing in the polls, raised the prospect on Saturday of a complete Democratic takeover of Washington as a reason to elect him over Democrat Barack Obama in 10 days.
The American voters have a long tradition of not wanting either party to get too much power. The last time the Democrats held both the executive and congressional branches was when Bill Clinton was elected, and it didn't last long.

Of course, once Bush was elected the Republicans held both branches, and it took until 2006 for the public to finally say they'd had enough. Whether that means they want to keep going, and get all the way into the fast lane to socialism, who knows?

McCain is a centrist, though, and considering that he'd be up against a hostile Democratic congress, his election would hardly mean GOP control as it's being spun. Clearly, Republican dominance is over, and I think the American electorate want it that way.

But how far do they want to go? Do they want the country under the total political control of the Democrats? It's a good question, a larger one than Barack Obama, and McCain should be hammering away at it -- if for no other reason than half the voters don't even know who Nancy Pelosi is. Political junkies tend to forget that what they take for granted as common knowledge is in fact uncommon. A lot of people simply don't know which party is running Congress. Considering the abysmally low approval ratings of the legislative branch, ordinary voters might need a reminder of who is in charge there, and that they actually have opportunity to proceed with caution. Maybe even apply the brakes.

Of course, if the voters want socialism, voting for Obama is like taking your foot off the brakes and getting in the fast lane.

Yes, the fast lane to socialism certainly is change. But is it the kind of change that American voters really want?

I realize that America's "progress" towards full blown socialism may be inevitable. As it is, government nationalization of the economy is continuing full pace, and when the astronomically high cost of baby boomer Medicare "entitlements" kicks in, even many Republicans may welcome socialized medicine because the inevitable rationing would build in a cost containment mechanism. And once these things are in place, they become politically impossible to undo.

With all that in mind, I prefer as much gridlock as possible along the way, and I see a vote for McCain as a vote in favor of maintaining at least some semblance of gridlock.

Yes, I know that "balance of power" has a much more pleasant ring to it, but this is a blog post, not a speech. "Gridlock" sounds very unappealing. Backward, even. "Fast lane," "progress," and "change" all sound appealing, promising, even sexy.

As unattractive, boring, and stultifying as "gridlock" may sound right now, once it's lost it will seem like a precious, time-honored American birthright.

Because if it's change they want, it'll be change they'll get!

(If only "they" didn't get to drag me into their "we.")

posted by Eric on 10.26.08 at 10:53 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7535






Comments

The economic system being advocated by "progressive" Democrats is not exactly socialism. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi don't have any interest in having the government actually *run* economically productive enterprises...they aren't interested in government ownership of mines, refineries, and factories, because (unlike old leftists) mining, refining, and manufacturing aren't really things they value. Rather, they want to control the economy via thousands of rules and directives, issued by politicians and officials with little knowledge and less accountability...and then blame the private sector for things that don't work. This is really closer to the economic aspects of fascism than it is to socialism.

david foster   ·  October 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Hitler said that socialists keep wanting to "own" busineses. He on the other claw said, "I don't need to own the factories when I own the people that own them."

toad   ·  October 26, 2008 12:06 PM

This means you believe that electing McCain will result in Gridlock as opposed to his "reaching accross the aisle" to save a few cherished programs = military funding, etc. while giving in on the rest.

fiona   ·  October 26, 2008 09:19 PM

I have no problem with reaching across the aisle for good purposes. But in general, the less government, the better. In that sense, a little gridlock is a good thing.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 26, 2008 09:35 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits