4 ms·

Not really, it's that the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants. Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme win

Not really, it's that the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants. Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings, so even within each party they can't agree, and then when the two parties are pitted against each other in campaigns or in the practice of governing, they again can't agree. Double whammy. It shouldn't be any surprise that under these conditions not much gets done. Also, controversial opinion here I'm sure, but imho that gridlock is mostly good thing. The less the government is able to do, the more of a stable and predictable state the country is in, making forecasting and planning more reliable. The one exception is the government's inability to reign in deficit spending, and perhaps their longer term inability to ensure solvency of social programs.

TheCondor 9y ago
This last election is a poster child for the gridlock system being a good one. When things go your way, they never move fast enough, when they go against your wishes, it’s always too fast.
yock 9y ago
> the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants Which will always be true of sufficiently large groups of humans. The more we insist that we all share common goals, the wider the schism between us becomes.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  The system of federalism is helpful on this front, as it allows a higher degree of self-governance, since policy decisions can be made more locally.
dsjoerg 9y ago
Not so; on many issues, the country as a whole (its citizens) knows what it wants but the parties and duopoly can't deliver it because of how they're structured. For example there are improvements to healthcare, taxation and financial regulation which a supermajority of citizens would agree with, but the current system cannot/will not deliver. These improvements do not particularly align with either party's agenda. Another example, closer to people here on HN; merit-based immigration. Support among citizens is broad and I am guessing it would be a supermajority; however more politically active and powerful people in the US on the left and right oppose it.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration. So you’d be talking about shifting more of the existing immigration quotas to merit away from family reunification. Americans don’t like that either.
  - komaromy 9y ago
    > The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration Evidence?
- pjc50 9y ago
  > merit-based immigration Isn't this what the green card system already is?
  - yahna 9y ago
    God no.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings This is simply untrue and false equivalence.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  What? You have the Bernie socialists vs the Clinton centrists on one side, and the Trump MAGA warbirds vs the McCain moderates on the other. It sure looks fractured to me.
  - curiousess 9y ago
    This is a "both sides are the same" fallacy. Just because it looks fractured doesn't mean it is equally so: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-republican-party/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-r... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-po... https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592 https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592
    - richardthered 9y ago
      Agree. Also, see the DW Nominate scores for congress. https://voteview.com/parties/all https://voteview.com/parties/all Liberals are at 0.38, and the most extreme they've ever been was 0.39. They have been somewhat more liberal than they were in the 40s, but they've generally been within the same band of scores for the last 100+ years. Conservatives, on the other hand, are at 0.49, which is the most conservative they've been in the last 200 years. They've basically doubled since the 1970s. So, objectively, conservatives are more extreme (0.49) than liberals (0.38) today. Also, the most extreme conservatives are more extreme than the most extreme liberals.
pizza 9y ago
I think it may be true that the country can't decide on what it wants, but instead because the public wants something it isn't getting, something it can't get. Obviously people don't want to feel uncertain because of volatility in government. The gridlock is intended to curtail legislative havoc a single party might cause if it got too big. The problem is partisan gridlock only staggers when party interests conflict. Even then, that type of legislation is likely less unreasonable because of its partisan origins - the originating party has to make it palatable through willingness to include concessions, listen to the other party's concerns, address them in modifications and reattempt getting it passed. The thing is both parties share much in common, and much of what they'd both agree to expand is concerning if not disenfranchising. - uncritical fealty to institutional authority - endless war - the disregard for our privacy in their approval of expanding surveillance - their disavowal in the strongest terms of any obstacle to their right to secrecy because national security - deregulating campaign funding - complicating a law, legislating it, and then relying upon that expertise to guarantee a cushy retirement in the private sector - a worsening addiction to defense spending If anything, I'd say the gridlock actually makes it easier for government to grant itself inadequately-justified powers and broaden its scope beyond deemed appropriate. Voters in this political climate see more of its potential going towards negating a vote for the other guy rather than signaling which problems need most attention. We have a situation where Congressmen/women ignore their constituents and avoid their own town-hall meetings. And when in Washington (to the voter's frustration) much time is wasted, and bitterly. I guess it makes sense that they exhibit the ability to agree mostly on measures that make the government more ruthless, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

TheCondor 9y ago

This last election is a poster child for the gridlock system being a good one. When things go your way, they never move fast enough, when they go against your wishes, it’s always too fast.

yock 9y ago

> the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants Which will always be true of sufficiently large groups of humans. The more we insist that we all share common goals, the wider the schism between us becomes.

theseatoms 9y ago
The system of federalism is helpful on this front, as it allows a higher degree of self-governance, since policy decisions can be made more locally.

dsjoerg 9y ago

Not so; on many issues, the country as a whole (its citizens) knows what it wants but the parties and duopoly can't deliver it because of how they're structured. For example there are improvements to healthcare, taxation and financial regulation which a supermajority of citizens would agree with, but the current system cannot/will not deliver. These improvements do not particularly align with either party's agenda. Another example, closer to people here on HN; merit-based immigration. Support among citizens is broad and I am guessing it would be a supermajority; however more politically active and powerful people in the US on the left and right oppose it.

rayiner 9y ago
The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration. So you’d be talking about shifting more of the existing immigration quotas to merit away from family reunification. Americans don’t like that either.
- komaromy 9y ago
  > The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration Evidence?
pjc50 9y ago
> merit-based immigration Isn't this what the green card system already is?
- yahna 9y ago
  God no.

Sangermaine 9y ago

>Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings This is simply untrue and false equivalence.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
OtterCoder 9y ago
What? You have the Bernie socialists vs the Clinton centrists on one side, and the Trump MAGA warbirds vs the McCain moderates on the other. It sure looks fractured to me.
- curiousess 9y ago
  This is a "both sides are the same" fallacy. Just because it looks fractured doesn't mean it is equally so: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-republican-party/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-r... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-po... https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592 https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592
  - richardthered 9y ago
    Agree. Also, see the DW Nominate scores for congress. https://voteview.com/parties/all https://voteview.com/parties/all Liberals are at 0.38, and the most extreme they've ever been was 0.39. They have been somewhat more liberal than they were in the 40s, but they've generally been within the same band of scores for the last 100+ years. Conservatives, on the other hand, are at 0.49, which is the most conservative they've been in the last 200 years. They've basically doubled since the 1970s. So, objectively, conservatives are more extreme (0.49) than liberals (0.38) today. Also, the most extreme conservatives are more extreme than the most extreme liberals.

pizza 9y ago

I think it may be true that the country can't decide on what it wants, but instead because the public wants something it isn't getting, something it can't get. Obviously people don't want to feel uncertain because of volatility in government. The gridlock is intended to curtail legislative havoc a single party might cause if it got too big. The problem is partisan gridlock only staggers when party interests conflict. Even then, that type of legislation is likely less unreasonable because of its partisan origins - the originating party has to make it palatable through willingness to include concessions, listen to the other party's concerns, address them in modifications and reattempt getting it passed. The thing is both parties share much in common, and much of what they'd both agree to expand is concerning if not disenfranchising. - uncritical fealty to institutional authority - endless war - the disregard for our privacy in their approval of expanding surveillance - their disavowal in the strongest terms of any obstacle to their right to secrecy because national security - deregulating campaign funding - complicating a law, legislating it, and then relying upon that expertise to guarantee a cushy retirement in the private sector - a worsening addiction to defense spending If anything, I'd say the gridlock actually makes it easier for government to grant itself inadequately-justified powers and broaden its scope beyond deemed appropriate. Voters in this political climate see more of its potential going towards negating a vote for the other guy rather than signaling which problems need most attention. We have a situation where Congressmen/women ignore their constituents and avoid their own town-hall meetings. And when in Washington (to the voter's frustration) much time is wasted, and bitterly. I guess it makes sense that they exhibit the ability to agree mostly on measures that make the government more ruthless, but it's disappointing nonetheless.