A Layman’s View Of Political Gridlock

The current financial crisis has less to do with economics than it does with stubbornness. A radical faction of the Republican Party has taken control of the debate and refuse to budge on anything by demanding their positions be accepted without compromise.

They claim that their power, (of numbers), reflects the statistical composition between the parties elected to Congress and is strong enough to stonewall any policies that conflict with their own; creating a stalemate by preventing the ability to credibly govern since they are there, according to them, to express the will of the constituents who voted them into office.

The problem lies not only with the politicians, but with the electorate who voted them into office based on regional concerns and the anger which results with the delay in gratification to see changes in what is perceived as a failure to resolve some of the most serious economic problems, most of which are global and based on such things as climate changes which require international cooperation.

Events in life almost never play out as they were initially envisioned, and the future offers many circumstances that cannot be anticipated on election day. Should politicians be rigidly held to the promises they made during the campaign after which events often change, a result of fluid conditions that cannot be anticipated until they happen?  Or should other criteria be used to elect them to office?

Are we doomed to a cycle of changes in administrations every time politicians are rigidly held to promises made that are impossible to keep. Or should we be looking for another basis to decide who will legislate and lead?

Unfortunately, people vote on the basis of anger and frustration, seeing the banking system as wall street and the financial markets reek with greed, owing allegiances to their stockholders who are concerned less with what is best for the public then lining their own pockets.

Human nature tends to demand short term outcomes more than long term results which may take years or decades to see. However by that time, the increased changes in advancing technology creates new challenges that cannot be foreseen from a present perspective.

Perhaps ethics, morality, judgement and the willingness to compromise should be the basis for electing officials to office, and those who cling to rigid philosophies should be thrown out of office. Even the framers of The Constitution knew the world would change and expected politicians to reflect those changes and act with eclectic resolve.

What do you think?