Statues Built of Snow

Statues Built Of Snow Audio

There used to be a time when the term “gridlock” referred to an irksome traffic jam on a rush-hour roadway, not a systemic malignancy in the American body politic. Waxing nostalgically, I greatly prefer the former to the latter; at least with the former, one always has the option of either taking an alternate route or simply waiting for the traffic jam to ease up. In the latter case however, there is, generally speaking, no alternate route to take; that's the nature of political gridlock. And what’s worse there is no guarantee that the political hornet’s nest will ever ease up. 

By now, most of us are pretty well conversant with the nature and reality of political gridlock; rarely does anything of significance ever get done because one side spends the lion’s share of its time and energy blaming the other side for all the inaction. Those who are hopeful idealists seek that "alternate route" which will permit ultimately legislation to be enacted; for progress being made. That "route" involves compromise, reaching across the aisle, and forcing partisan political orthodoxy take make way for real progress. Remember when politics used to be defined as "The art of the possible?" Today, alas, the reality is that political factionalism and feuding have become roadblocks to "the possible" - to keeping even the most obvious and necessary pieces of legislation from  ever being enacted. It has also given rise to a whole gaggle of candidates who run on promises of "Draining the swamp," "Reaching across the aisle," and "Seeking to find common cause for the commonweal." Of course, once these folks get elected – assuming they ever do – they become just about as partisan and case hardened as the people they replaced.

Feuds - and not just the political sort - are nothing new. It took the Bible all of four chapters to introduce a blood feud into the world - that of Cain and Abel. History is replete with feuds, such as those between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I of England. And of course, Shakespeare gave the literary world the ultimate fictional family feud between the Montagues and Capulets in Romeo and Juliet.  In more modern times, Hollywood has manufactured feuds between Joan Crawford and Bette Davis and sisters Olivia De Havilland and Joan Fontaine in order to stimulate box office grosses.

The reasons why families, political factions and religious sects engage in feuds are as numerous and varied as the feuds themselves. How and why some last but a few years while others flourish for decades, centuries, and even millennia is a whole other story. Why, as an example, are Shiite and Sunni Muslims still engaged in mortal theological conflict after more than 1,400 years; that's difficult to understand without a reasonable grounding in Islamic history. The original schism, which I explained in brief nearly a dozen years ago in an essay entitled Shiites and Sunnis: The Schism That Will Not Heal, put forth the "why" behind their mutual antipathy but did not - indeed, could not - come close to explaining why the feud was as powerful today as it was at the time of the Prophet Mohammad's death way back in the year 632 C.E.  

At the same time, the question of why congressional Republicans - who  up to 100 days ago were incredibly unified, speaking mostly with a single voice - are now as factionalized as a coalition of Israeli politicians; that's actually pretty easy to explain. Generally speaking, when a party controls both houses Congress and the White House it begins devouring itself by devolving into ideological factions, each of which finds it next to impossible to work with those who are not in 100% agreement with their worldview. (The same thing occurred with the Democrats in the early years of the Obama administration when, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House they were the ones who had a hard time agreeing on many issues – especially healthcare.) Just as the Republicans were unified in their opposition to Barack Obama during his two terms in office, so too are Democrats (mostly) unified in their opposition to '45 and the Republican agenda. 

What is perhaps most maddening (though not terribly surprising) about the political gridlock which has been afflicting Congress for years is the blatant finger-pointing that passes for progress. In other words, just as Democrats blamed the Republicans for being obstructionist during the Obama administration, it is now the Republicans' turn to put the mark of Cain on the Democrats. Although not terribly surprising, it is, as mentioned above, most maddening. Why? Because both parties show themselves to be more engrossed in the folly of feud then in the art of the possible. Compromise is next to impossible when one is engaged in a feud; the "other side" is no longer a mere competitor – he or she is your mortal, immoral enemy.  

Is there a solution to gridlock and political feuding (both inter- and intra-party)?  Can it be solved merely by "throwing the bums out," "draining the swamp," or some other puerile slogan masquerading as political strategy? I for one believe there may well be, but it's going to take a new generation of political animals who are accustomed to taking the long view -- who understand that real progress not only takes a long time, but patience, professionalism and the knowledge that compromise and capitulation are two vastly different words bipolar opposites.

In reality, both sides know they are full of it. It is not merely a case of "We're going to get back at you for what you did to us." Both sides know that they are individually and severally responsible for the gridlock. They build houses of straw and then are amazed when the slightest breeze causes the structures they've erected to collapse. Or, in the words of the great Sir Walter Scott, "We build statues out of snow, and weep to see them melt."

100 days down, 1,357 to go.

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

 

Comments

[Samuel Kazungu Muramba]

Greetings, neat webpage you've in here.

[Rich Cohen]

I agree whole heartedly with Steve's comments. Unfortunately, intelligent, reality based thinkers are too smart to run for political office. The other problem is even though the general public has little regard for our
"so called" congressional leaders, all politics is LOCAL. They despise everyone in congress EXCEPT their congress person. Therefore reelecting the same idiots. It's like having a circular firing squad. On second thought, a circular firing squad might be a good idea!

[KFS to Steve]

Great thought you've shared . . . would make a marvelous - though maddening - essay​. Apropos of what you wrote at the end of your email, did you see or hear what '45 had to say about the Civil War and Pres. Andrew Jackson earlier today? The man doesn't know the first thing about American history.

Remember the old song that begins with "Don't know much about history, don't know much biology . . ." Could this have been composed with a future ignoramus in mind?

[Steve]

Maybe some food for thought for a future piece. Here's what I posted on FB to mark DJT's 100 days:

Imagine for a moment if HRC had won the electoral college. Where would we be after 100 days?
Her budget would be dead on arrival. The effort to repeal Obamacare would be unified. Her nominee to the Supreme Court would not receive a hearing, much less a vote. Possibly she would be facing articles of impeachment.
In other words, the nation's division would be no less than it is right now with a Trump presidency. And if that is so regardless of who is president, then the problem does not reside in the White House.
It lies with us, with the American people. And therefore the task of repairing the civic fabric likewise belongs to the public. I wish there were voices of healing arising from the rancor, and I believe that sort of person exists, but he or she has not become audible yet.
In my view, our goal should not be appeasement, but it to be mindful of a time of much greater division, and what Abraham Lincoln called on us all to do:
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."