Even if the Republicans take back the House AND the Senate this November, it’s likely that their majorities will be so slim that they’ll have difficulty living up to some of the promises they’ve made. And this is precisely why economist Arnold Kling doesn’t think that gridlock is such a great legislative agenda for the American people – indeed, for libertarians:
Recently, I pointed to polling data showing that American voters now want to see leaders who will stick to their principles rather than compromise. It seems likely that the election in six weeks will give them their wish. That means that each political party will have the capability and the will to veto proposals from the other party. It means that bipartisan proposals, such as might come out of the deficit-reduction commission, are dead on arrival.
Libertarians used to see gridlock as a good thing. However, now that the evident need is for major reductions in the path of spending, this is in fact the worst possible time to have gridlock.
The policy making calculus is simple: With a slim majority, it’ll be hard for Republicans to roll back ObamaCare and other huge-ticket items. While they quibble with House and Senate Democrats and the president, Obama-era programs ossify and become even more difficult to roll back, compounding the problems which have already begun to take effect.
But the political calculus is equally simple, and doesn’t bode well for Republicans: If Republicans try to play hardball in the gridlock game after January, and the economy rebounds, President Obama will get to take credit for the rebound and he’ll have his re-election campaign foil: Those GOP meanies who keep trying to block progress.
A bold perspective: Force a government shut-down before the election.
