Gridlock

                The American system of governance prizes oversight over effectiveness. As such, it should hardly surprise us to find that the legislative process is prone to policy sclerosis. The founding fathers did not intend Congress to act in a manner comparable to the British Parliament (its main template in terms of what a legislature should perform). Congress was designed in a manner consistent with the aim of limited government and within a broader structure of checks and balances. These are important points to grasp when considering the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislative branch. Gridlock between the legislature and the executive is surely an inevitable consequence of the system bequeathed by the framers of the Constitution. Gridlock as a term can also be applied to relations between the two chambers.

                Gridlock bears an obvious relationship to which party is in control of which branch (or chamber). Unlike a parliamentary system, the executive branch may well be controlled by a party that differs to that of the legislative branch. Equally, each of the main parties may be in control of one legislative chamber. In order to get around the problem, both parties must engage in some form of compromise. If they do not, then deadlock may occur. This can have major repercussions outside of the Washington bubble. For example, it may lead to government departments being closed due to a lack of funding – as was the case in 2013.

                Unlike many other countries, it is impossible to state which party is in government. Although there have been times when one party has been in control of both legislative chambers and the White House; the American system does not facilitate one-party dominance. Indeed, Americans themselves seem quite comfortable splitting their vote between the two main parties. There are certainly positives about the American system, notably in terms of preventing the abuse of power. However, there are also drawbacks that no-one could deny. These drawbacks become more obvious due to the trend towards ideological polarization and particularly during a period of divided government. As a result, the majority party may find it relatively straight-forward to adopt an obstructionist scorched-earth strategy. This has certainly been the criticism levied against House Republicans since the 2010 mid-terms under Obama. Whilst hostile rhetoric and ideological purity pleases the party base, it is somewhat contrary to getting things done for the benefit of the American people. As a consequence, the legislative branch of government ultimately serves a minority rather than the broader public interest. Partisan posturing will always be more prominent when an upcoming election casts a shadow over proceedings, particularly within the House. That said; President Obama must share some of the blame for his failure to engage constructively with congressional Republicans. He is the most polarizing President since records began, and he must acknowledge some responsibility for this along with Tea Party-inspired Republicans. Ideological polarization reflects a trend within American politics that would seem unlikely to be reversed. Elected representatives cannot really do much unless they regain their posts, and that becomes increasingly unlikely if they adopt a centrist position based on bipartisan compromise.

                One can identify a pattern emerging due to ideological polarization. Both sides stoke up the rhetoric in order to reassure their base before reaching a last-minute compromise. For instance, there is without question an element of brinkmanship in the context of securing a deal on the budget. Ultimately, both sides need an agreement to work but have a vested interest in portraying the other side in as negative a manner as possible. There is something of a ritual to this whole play, acted out on the public stage in full view of a frustrated audience. Moreover, politicians in Washington DC have deadlines in place that tacitly encourages brinkmanship. This unedifying process has damaged the status of Congress in the eyes of the electorate. As a placard outside Capitol Hill eloquently put it in the aftermath of the government shutdown of October 2013; “you do your job … so I can do mine!” That said; it is surely a consequence of a system based on a shared mandate and one increasingly polarized between the two main parties. What is perhaps worth further reflection is that the American public appears to have little appetite for unified government. Since 1981, Americans have returned a system of unified government on just one occasion (in 2004).

                Before we leave this section, it must be recognized that gridlock is not necessarily inevitable. It can of course be avoided via bipartisan co-operation, and the willingness of the White House and Capitol Hill to reach a compromise agreement. The ability of the President to act as an effective liaison between the various parties is another important element to consider. Other factors to consider include the strength of the President’s mandate, the existence of clear and realistic objectives and the relationship between the party leaders within Congress. However, history shows that the most important factor is the existence of a national emergency. In these thankfully rare situations, there is a sense that ‘we are all in it together’ and that bipartisan rhetoric serves no one. For instance, only one member of Congress voted against giving President George W. Bush the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the main elements of the Patriot Act were authorised by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010. Whilst these are of course exceptions to the rule, they do remind us what Congress can actually achieve with a sufficient degree of political will.