You've heard it repeated over and over again. "Partisan gridlock." It is some sort of being or force of nature. We must overcome "partisan gridlock." Evan Bayh won't name names. You see, partisan gridlock doesn't actually have any one person or persons attached to it. It is very much like the invisible hand of "the market." Partisan gridlock. Everyone in Congress hates it, yet, there it remains. We are told by pundits that American voters hate it, yet, there it remains. It is like bad weather, only less understood.
The conventional wisdom would probably answer that this occurs when the two major parties cannot come to an agreement that suits them both, therefore, nothing is to be done. It ignores the basic idea of factional elections and majority rule. There could be 400 republicans and 35 democrats in Congress and without both parties in agreement, there would be "partisan gridlock." In short, in Washington, partisan gridlock essentially means the parties pay too much attention to the things they campaign for, and too little attention giving up those ideas and positions. That's the Washington explanation.
In Britain, they have no such thing as "partisan gridlock." You have elections, one party wins, that party governs or it doesn't. If the governing party fails to govern or the public doesn't like how it governs, that party is thrown out and a new government is elected. In fact, it is like that in most of the industrial world.
In America, however, what is now being called "partisan gridlock" is actually just a failure on the part of the majority party to govern. There is no invisible gridlock force. What there is, in fact, is an unwillingness on the part of the ruling party to..well...rule. There are a multitude of reasons for this. There is the influence of lobbying and the campaign money that comes with it. There are genuine differences of opinion within the ruling party. There is a party leader who avoids taking sides in intraparty disputes, and his inability or unwillingness to resolve the disputes, provide direction and enforce it. There is weak leadership among all the various factions, none strong enough to overcome the other.
In fairness, what is possible is "institutional gridlock." This occurs when one institution like the Presidency is opposed to another, like Congress, and the failure to resolve issues results in a breakdown in governance. It usually occurs when there is divided government. This circumstance is rare and not long lasting. The Constitution has built in corrective measures...called regular elections and term limits on the executive. Even in periods of divided government, one party tends to have the upper hand over the other so long as it is willing to use its power.
So I say dispense with this ridiculous "partisan gridlock" stuff. The real problem is obvious: There would be no "gridlock" at all if the majority party simply acted like one. The people don't go out and vote against "partisan gridlock." The vote against failure and for success. They're open minded to what the solutions are. "Agnostic" if you will. They just want them to get things done. They're willing to TRY anything. But there is one thing for sure they do not want, and that is a governing party that wont govern. I think voters everywhere feel the same way.