Washington's discord shouldn't interrupt America's symphony

Consider the relationship between politicians and the fears of their constituencies. If enough Americans were horrified at the sight of the color red, so too would be politicians. There would, of course, be different shades of madness endorsed by the politicians. The more cautious might simply express their disappointment at the myriad failings of the color red. The more zealous would be sure to denounce the despised color with blood-curdling loathing and passion. Some of the more “progressive” types, aspiring for the lead position in the herd, might suggest something as drastic as stripping the color from all our nation’s flags.

Perhaps you think I’ve picked an absurd and unlikely case of fear. But today’s topic is about a case of fright so ludicrous and ungrounded that it makes the fear of red seem quite sane. I speak of the fear of political gridlock in our nation’s capitol. Our nation’s prominent newspapers regularly feature tearful journalists bemoaning the political gridlock crisis as though it has a corrosive affect on American progress and prosperity. In the same breath, bipartisanship is extolled as a new virtue, an antidote to division and its evil daughter, gridlock. Bravely and generously, both McCain and Obama resolutely promise to end division in Washington.

However, there’s nothing inherently scary about political gridlock. In fact, gridlock in politics is to be expected, even welcomed. A fear of gridlock erroneously arises from the notion that government is the sole director and master of our fates. If government doesn’t do something about the problem, then we’re helpless sheeple, whether its bailouts or reconstructions after natural disasters. No one likes to be this blatant about it, yet that’s the sentiment, and it’s widespread.

But it’s also wrongheaded. We have little reason to fear gridlock in Washington. Its gridlock is not ours. Washington’s discord should not interrupt America’s symphony, which bewitches and inspires the world. Washington is hardly more than a snarling pit of vipers with warring interests and competing aims. Disagreement and disunity are the order of the day. Yet, that shouldn’t astonish or disappoint; our model of governance was originally designed to be a rivalrous balance of powers to protect the people and to weaken the state. And there still remain some vestiges of restraint.

Naturally, the power hungry have little patience for even the few and enfeebled limitations that presently bound government. These rapacious sorts do not like limitations. They despise gridlocks. How much more attainable their aims without such!

So they’ve simply lied. They’ve told you and me that their party ambitions are too critical to be halted by gridlock. Our politicians soberly advise that the important, pressing matters of our day cannot suffer the former restraints of our republic. No, Washington’s gridlock is America’s gridlock.

Of course, one needs only the dimmest perception of Washington’s daily activities to know that little of it concerns Americans. Indeed, little of it ought to. To posit that without the government’s countless daily interferences we would be helpless and aimless is the height of folly and the perfection of subservience.

Perhaps you remain unconvinced. Perhaps you still thirst for a drop of magical unity. Well, I caution you that this isn’t a Disney movie where pretty words necessarily inspire happy endings. For a concentrated dose of unity look no further than the last eight years. Ever heard of a General Bush who infamously quipped that “it’d be a heck of a lot easier if it were a dictatorship” as he sentenced our military to an unconstitutional war? Of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus? Of the mockery made of our Bill of Rights? Of All the Child Left Behind? That’s the specter of unity for Washington’s sake. Unity in Washington permits a single wild man (or woman) to satisfy all his passions and delusions with no resistance. We the people are worse off for such unity.

Unity for America’s sake is different. It puts principles above petty party passions and it restrains government. Sound novel and untried but interesting? There’s a club that meets at Cal Poly to talk about just such revolutionary concepts I recommend you to.

Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate and the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club. “Don’t Tread on Me” will appear in the Mustang Daily every Wednesday as a weekly political column. You can contact him at LibertarianColumn@gmail.com.