On the eve of a newly-divided Congress anxiety is stirring up over the prospect of a--gasp!--gridlocked government. With no more one-party rule, how will anything get done?
The premise of this anxiety rests on two assumptions that need reconsidered:
- Only good things transpire when all branches of the government act in one accord without obstruction or party bickering, and, conversely,
- When government is gridlocked nothing good happens
Consider some historical examples of what happens when one party controls the Senate, the House, and the White House.
2009-2010: Democrats in control. What "got done"?
- A trillion dollar special-interest payout piece of..."legislation," (Whew. Almost broke a New Years resolution there.) was piled on top of our staggering debt. It was euphemistically called a "stimulus package" but all it stimulated was the debt and a downturn in the economy during a recession (and the burgeoning Tea Party movement).
- A thinly-veiled bailout of the Auto Workers union transpired which led to the government take-over of GM. Mussolini could not have drawn up a better "co-operative" between industry and government planners. How's the whole Chevy Volt masterpiece of corporatism going these days, by the way?
- A staggering 2,700 page health care bill creating vast new powers over the lives of every American was passed over massive public disapproval and bi-partisan opposition in the House. Oh, and that purchase-or-punishment provision was tucked in there that authorizes the federal government to force you, an individual, to purchase a product from a private company. Buy insurance or be fined or jailed.
- College loans get nationalized. Reflecting on the track record of prices after government subsidies in health care, housing, and college loans up to this point, what could go wrong?
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get nationalized and continue on with an endless line of instant credit to the Treasury Department, that is, the backs of the US taxpayers.
2003-2007: The Republicans controlled the Senate, House and White House. What did they "get done"?
- An unconstitutional, unwarranted, unnecessary war is initiated in Iraq. With it came unknown civilian deaths, still occurring, ostensibly in a global strategy that began in reaction the murder of our own non-combatant innocent civilians on 9-11. Now there's some irony chew on. Several thousand US troops have died and many more marred for life, all for what, again? Then there's the obligatory endless occupation and troop presence (how is the exit strategy in Germany, Japan, and Korea going, anyway?). That's not going to reduce the debt.
- Federal spending and the size of the government exploded during the reign of the party that says it's devoted to smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
- A new federal entitlement drug benefit program was initiated by the party of limited government and personal responsibility, getting the debt really rolling early in W's first term. The Dems used that as rhetorical precedent for their 2010 initiation of nationalizing health care. Good one, Dubbya!
- Steel tariffs. Like all protective tariffs, this is guaranteed to screw the consumer and taxpayer.
- Nationalizing education standards and letting Ted Kennedy write an "education" bill. Look out, Korean, Japanese, and Indian grade schoolers: Our federal bureaucracy is more involved in local education now.
- Unemployment never went below 14%, averaging 17% from 1934-40. FDR made it a crime to own gold, tripled taxes, intentionally made everything more expensive for everyone, destroyed food (6 million hogs, for instance) when people were literally starving, and created a double depression (1938). (How about a book instead of a link?: FDR's Folly
)
- Government-orchestrated monopolies in agriculture (via the Agricultural Adjustment Act) colluded to raise commodity prices at a time when people had fewer dollars to buy the bare necessities to avoid dying.
- Government planners sent agents into nearly every small business (via the National Recovery Act) and threw people in jail if they lowered their prices for customers who had less money, setting prices below government edicts. (See the Supreme Court case Schecter v. U.S.)
- The only certainty was uncertainty, due to the inability to put a roadblock in the way of government (that is, limit its scope and power), so there was virtually no investment or capital accumulation, what's most needed for recovery
- A deep recession descended into the worst depression in US history. Hence, America's only great depression
During all the above occurrences the federal government was actually divided by branches and Congress divided by chambers. One department, irrespective of which party controlled it, could have at any one time exercised its constitutional rights and duty and interfered with the operations of the other departments and forestalled or prevented any of the above travesties.
Parties are extra-constitutional entities that should compliment and assist the separation of powers, as we'll most likely see with a new House coming in this month. Party spirit should never work against the spirit of separation of powers and grease the tracks toward limitless government the Constitution is designed to obstruct.
We already place too much hope and faith in the parties. Back to Madison: "Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions," and we have such precautions in the Constitution. Politicians have given us a lot "experience" to show our dire need to keep them gridlocked in the limits of the Constitution and its separation of powers.
A lot of experience.
