Gridlock Or Political Stalemate
In politics, gridlock or deadlock or political stalemate refers to a situation when the laws that satisfy the needs of the people are difficult to pass. The gridlock occurs when the proportion of bills passed and the legislative agenda decreases. In addition, the gridlock also can occur when the President and the majority in one or both houses of Congress are of different political parties. Achieving consensus on the new law is difficult when there are parties with such opposition point of views. The main causes Gridlock in Congress might be the worrying about the carry on indefinitely of new laws, the competition over "winning" and "losing.", and the fearing of change.
Firstly, policymakers understand that the new legislation can be implemented …show more content…
indefinitely, so if the law is passed, it is often expected to continue until another law changes it. For example, for the purpose of offsetting deficits, raising taxes can be seen as a fitting proposal for many members of Congress. However, even if the economy improves, higher taxes will create anxiety and rivalry between conservative lawmakers and liberal lawmakers. And if the economy gets stronger, more conservative members may want to reduce taxes that require a deal with the liberal party, which can be difficult in the long run; while other conservatives may want to maintain the current high tax status because of fear of reversing such actions in the future. In fact, the conservative members will oppose to raising taxes, and the liberal members will oppose to decreasing taxes - even if those changes will benefit the economy. The desire to maintain equilibrium is due to a vicious cycle in which polarization and disagreement are always going together to limit the change of law and can lead to complete gridlock. The nature of long-term policy affects polarization. The fact is that many policies are long-term but need to be revised periodically to respond to economic development.
Secondly, the competition over "winning" and "losing” is another reason that causes Gridlock in Congress. Without competition, elections are meaningless exercises. Competition, the real choice for voters to redirect their representatives, is what makes the election important tools of government representatives. Since the main constituencies of US election structure and political legislation during the twentieth century, the focus of this study was the competition between Democrats and Republicans. Likewise, if voters do not provide some direction to the government through elections, make selective, selective synthesis changes, competitive elections are poor tools. popular control of the government. In this model, success necessarily means that one side must win and the other must lose.
In my opinion, the solution relies on changing the view of "winning" and "losing".
The distribution of "winning" and "losing" is just as the situation becomes more impassable because the party makes a recommendation on the law and is rejected by the other party. With no more than two-thirds votes, the requests will never be passed. And we all lose the opportunity to develop economic, political and legislation that most Americans know. To illustrate, after the mass shooting of 20 first graders at a Connecticut school, Congress began the legislative process of determining which designation are politically workable in the attempt to prevent gun violence. However, the Republicans against the ban on weapons – similar to a ban in place between 1994 and 2004 – and seem to be a movement toward a compromise on the gun-trafficking legislation. The gridlock seems like partly because members avoid debatable issues about a spending bill to pass when Congress is pursuing a moratorium on changing arm despite a series of mass shootings in a year. At the same time, the Democrat has repeatedly failed to pass a law that prevented people on the terrorist list of government buy guns. According to the lobbyists, the measure was not included in the spending bill. The polls show that public support for more stringent weapons laws, but the NRA is concerned and respected in Washington for its ability to mobilize gun
owners. Polls show that Americans want to solve the problem. They are tired of the stalemate and are overwhelmed by the nonstop competitions, Congress's sluggishness, and a permanent war between the two major political parties that are polarized. Problem-solving and compromising have created many wars and barriers to doctrine at any cost. Even the dangers of the economy are not enough to break the political deadlock. Consequently, people lose confidence in the ability of the government to solve urgent problems. Moreover, although representatives of various parties may be able to sit down and find solutions, so that does not seem to please their voters. This is reflected in the negotiations on the jurisdiction as well as in the debate on national fiscal affairs. "Getting primaried" has become a term that used to describe the power of hard-core voters over their representatives. So, the meaning of "winning" and "losing" need to be redefined. Perhaps the "losing" here is the stagnation of the solutions and the "winning" is to reach an agreement between the parties and solve any deadlock.
The key to solving this problem is for the leaders to serve the interests of their constituents instead of following their narrow positions. Another solution is we should request voting mandatory for citizens with a small fine for people who do not vote without a reasonable reason like in Australia and in other countries. This would increase voter turnout and pressure on candidates to adjust their message to less passionate, more realistic and independent. In addition, we should try to redistribute the power out of hand of elected officials and delegate to a nonpartisan commission with clear and transparent guidelines. In the United States, Iowa is the only state that has made this clear move toward to a good government. Even more, Congress should establish a Joint Committee on Structural Reform to examine the structural needs in both Houses and report recommendations to modernize the Congress as soon as possible. The first Article of the Constitution established the Congress while allowing, “each House to establish its own rules of proceeding.” From the very beginning, the two Houses used joint committees to resolve their differences and reform their procedures.
Thirdly, the fact that we all fear change and usually avoid it if we can. In fact, fear is one of the most common reasons to resist change because it will stop you from taking any action. But when it comes to thinking, there seems to be a reasonable explanation for this common reaction. Our society is currently experiencing tremendous changes. The United States is experiencing a major demographic shift by immigrant communities coming to the United States from all the exotic countries of the world such as Africa, the Middle East and India with costumes, literature and their own religion. In addition, we face the tremendous economic changes as corporations are slowly moving abroad because of lower production costs that affect the lives of people. All of these fluctuations create a sense of uncertainty and anxiety. The lesson is that we are better at working together, compromising and accepting the views of others. To solve the gridlock, we not only change the way we define successes and how we delegate our representatives but also how we think and how we talk; and it is not easy to implement. Changes in laws and policies will always lead to major changes in economics, politics, security, science, and health.
To sum up, The unprecedented political paralysis of the US is undermining the country inside and abroad. Few members of the party are willing to give up their orders and agree to compromise. The Republicans ignored the facts, evidence, and science. They despise the idea of creating compromises with a legitimate political opposition. The powerful GOP is now ready to use all the leverage in the constitutional system even if it means delay and gridlock. In addition, any law that transcends such conditions is made without consensus between the two parties, dividing the nation is considered illegal or unadmitted by many people. The country is facing serious problems. When does the political system seriously deal with pensions and health care, immigration, security, less efficient tax systems and more? Indeed many Americans have lost faith in old solutions but are unsure about new ways to follow.
Firstly, policymakers understand that the new legislation can be implemented …show more content…
indefinitely, so if the law is passed, it is often expected to continue until another law changes it. For example, for the purpose of offsetting deficits, raising taxes can be seen as a fitting proposal for many members of Congress. However, even if the economy improves, higher taxes will create anxiety and rivalry between conservative lawmakers and liberal lawmakers. And if the economy gets stronger, more conservative members may want to reduce taxes that require a deal with the liberal party, which can be difficult in the long run; while other conservatives may want to maintain the current high tax status because of fear of reversing such actions in the future. In fact, the conservative members will oppose to raising taxes, and the liberal members will oppose to decreasing taxes - even if those changes will benefit the economy. The desire to maintain equilibrium is due to a vicious cycle in which polarization and disagreement are always going together to limit the change of law and can lead to complete gridlock. The nature of long-term policy affects polarization. The fact is that many policies are long-term but need to be revised periodically to respond to economic development.
Secondly, the competition over "winning" and "losing” is another reason that causes Gridlock in Congress. Without competition, elections are meaningless exercises. Competition, the real choice for voters to redirect their representatives, is what makes the election important tools of government representatives. Since the main constituencies of US election structure and political legislation during the twentieth century, the focus of this study was the competition between Democrats and Republicans. Likewise, if voters do not provide some direction to the government through elections, make selective, selective synthesis changes, competitive elections are poor tools. popular control of the government. In this model, success necessarily means that one side must win and the other must lose.
In my opinion, the solution relies on changing the view of "winning" and "losing".
The distribution of "winning" and "losing" is just as the situation becomes more impassable because the party makes a recommendation on the law and is rejected by the other party. With no more than two-thirds votes, the requests will never be passed. And we all lose the opportunity to develop economic, political and legislation that most Americans know. To illustrate, after the mass shooting of 20 first graders at a Connecticut school, Congress began the legislative process of determining which designation are politically workable in the attempt to prevent gun violence. However, the Republicans against the ban on weapons – similar to a ban in place between 1994 and 2004 – and seem to be a movement toward a compromise on the gun-trafficking legislation. The gridlock seems like partly because members avoid debatable issues about a spending bill to pass when Congress is pursuing a moratorium on changing arm despite a series of mass shootings in a year. At the same time, the Democrat has repeatedly failed to pass a law that prevented people on the terrorist list of government buy guns. According to the lobbyists, the measure was not included in the spending bill. The polls show that public support for more stringent weapons laws, but the NRA is concerned and respected in Washington for its ability to mobilize gun
owners. Polls show that Americans want to solve the problem. They are tired of the stalemate and are overwhelmed by the nonstop competitions, Congress's sluggishness, and a permanent war between the two major political parties that are polarized. Problem-solving and compromising have created many wars and barriers to doctrine at any cost. Even the dangers of the economy are not enough to break the political deadlock. Consequently, people lose confidence in the ability of the government to solve urgent problems. Moreover, although representatives of various parties may be able to sit down and find solutions, so that does not seem to please their voters. This is reflected in the negotiations on the jurisdiction as well as in the debate on national fiscal affairs. "Getting primaried" has become a term that used to describe the power of hard-core voters over their representatives. So, the meaning of "winning" and "losing" need to be redefined. Perhaps the "losing" here is the stagnation of the solutions and the "winning" is to reach an agreement between the parties and solve any deadlock.
The key to solving this problem is for the leaders to serve the interests of their constituents instead of following their narrow positions. Another solution is we should request voting mandatory for citizens with a small fine for people who do not vote without a reasonable reason like in Australia and in other countries. This would increase voter turnout and pressure on candidates to adjust their message to less passionate, more realistic and independent. In addition, we should try to redistribute the power out of hand of elected officials and delegate to a nonpartisan commission with clear and transparent guidelines. In the United States, Iowa is the only state that has made this clear move toward to a good government. Even more, Congress should establish a Joint Committee on Structural Reform to examine the structural needs in both Houses and report recommendations to modernize the Congress as soon as possible. The first Article of the Constitution established the Congress while allowing, “each House to establish its own rules of proceeding.” From the very beginning, the two Houses used joint committees to resolve their differences and reform their procedures.
Thirdly, the fact that we all fear change and usually avoid it if we can. In fact, fear is one of the most common reasons to resist change because it will stop you from taking any action. But when it comes to thinking, there seems to be a reasonable explanation for this common reaction. Our society is currently experiencing tremendous changes. The United States is experiencing a major demographic shift by immigrant communities coming to the United States from all the exotic countries of the world such as Africa, the Middle East and India with costumes, literature and their own religion. In addition, we face the tremendous economic changes as corporations are slowly moving abroad because of lower production costs that affect the lives of people. All of these fluctuations create a sense of uncertainty and anxiety. The lesson is that we are better at working together, compromising and accepting the views of others. To solve the gridlock, we not only change the way we define successes and how we delegate our representatives but also how we think and how we talk; and it is not easy to implement. Changes in laws and policies will always lead to major changes in economics, politics, security, science, and health.
To sum up, The unprecedented political paralysis of the US is undermining the country inside and abroad. Few members of the party are willing to give up their orders and agree to compromise. The Republicans ignored the facts, evidence, and science. They despise the idea of creating compromises with a legitimate political opposition. The powerful GOP is now ready to use all the leverage in the constitutional system even if it means delay and gridlock. In addition, any law that transcends such conditions is made without consensus between the two parties, dividing the nation is considered illegal or unadmitted by many people. The country is facing serious problems. When does the political system seriously deal with pensions and health care, immigration, security, less efficient tax systems and more? Indeed many Americans have lost faith in old solutions but are unsure about new ways to follow.