Considering the Merits of Political Gridlock
America’s federal government is known for being notoriously slow. It’s a source of frustration for many voters, who often look for a candidate that has the potential to accomplish the most within their tenure of office. While it is easy to equate “slow” with “inefficient”, this isn’t the case when it comes to the workings of a government. While it may sound counter-intuitive, political gridlock resulting in a “slower” system of government is actually healthy for our country, as it ensures two things; one, that no radical change will occur overnight, and two, that the public interest will prevail.
The basis of this argument can be found in some of our country’s foundational documents. In Federalist 51, Madison states that it is only natural for factions (interest groups) to develop overtime. This makes sense as there are always at least two sides to any politically charged issue. Madison goes on to argue that the best way to deal with factions is to ensure that a variety of them exist so that no one faction is able to dominate the political sphere. This guarantees that no singular group of people can make decisions for the rest of the public. In essence, Madison’s argument soundly relies on the reasoning that if different groups compete, the public interest will ultimately prevail.
This competition between factions/interest groups undoubtedly has the potential to bring Washington to a grinding halt time after time. However, despite some of its shortcomings, this competition is important, crucial even, to maintaining the stability of the government. Without this competition, members of either party would have to live in constant fear; after all, without the competition between different interest groups/parties, opposing viewpoints could be removed in the blink of an eye.
The Founding Fathers would also likely support having political gridlock be a part of our government. This is most evident in the creation of the cumbersome process involved in passing laws and amendments. This only further supports the idea that America was built to move at a steady pace.
An example of how political gridlock can be beneficial is apparent in the ongoing fight over gun control. Interest groups that seek to protect the 2nd Amendment like the NRA are constantly clashing with gun control advocacy groups like Moms Demand Action. This battle between the two groups prevents an onslaught of gun control legislation being passed or revoked at an alarming rate, allowing for a healthy balance to be maintained between security and liberty. In addition, this sort of competition also ensures that every side has a voice.
Some argue that political gridlock is unhealthy for our system of government because it stifles the government’s ability to bring about change. There are several convincing arguments that contend that legislation dealing with hot-button issues like environmental protection might never get passed because of political gridlock. Even though it is frustrating to consider that progress might have to be years in the making, it is worth it to maintain America’s system of democracy.
