With Congressional Gridlock, Americans Get a National Breather
A hobbled Congress isn’t a solution to our woes, but it’s a lot better than lawmakers set loose.

As a result of the midterm elections Republicans locked in a small-but-controlling majority in the House of Representatives, while Democrats retained a bare margin in the Senate. Why Americans were so turned-off by Democrats, but refrained from handing Republicans the overwhelming win they expected, will be a matter for self-reflection on each side of the aisle (Magic 8 Ball predicts: both will double-down on being wrong). But the election results stand as an expression of overwhelming lack of confidence in the major parties, with a resulting breather for the country resulting from the split decision's ensuing, and quite welcome, gridlock.
"The GOP takeover of the House will give Republicans the power to block efforts by Democrats to approve new regulations or taxes on the fossil-fuel industry, private-equity funds, tobacco makers and drug manufacturers," The Wall Street Journal's Brody Mullins and John D. McKinnon noted last week. "What's more, with President Biden in the White House and Democrats holding the slimmest of majorities in the Senate, Washington overall isn't expected to do much for the next two years."
That's good news for Americans baffled by Democrats' insistence on treating the U.S. economy as something between a laboratory experiment and a toy train set, with lawmakers indulging their whims through serial rounds of life-altering policy moves. "The hurdle for Democrats was high with 76 percent in ABC News exit poll results rating the economy negatively," the news network reported of exit polls. "Just 44 percent approved of Biden's work in office, among the lowest midterm presidential approval ratings in 40 years." Those disappointed voters will get a respite.
"With Republicans set to take control of the House and Biden's Democrats maintaining a razor-thin edge in the Senate, the president must now find a way to work with GOP lawmakers to get things done," Kate Davidson commented for Politico. "Rather than driving the economic policy agenda on Capitol Hill, Biden will be along for the ride—forced to grapple with issues that Republicans care about, or else settle for gridlock."
But as the GOP's slim majority in the House demonstrates, Republicans didn't exactly convince the country that they were the cavalry riding to the rescue. Their main selling point seems to have been that they weren't Democrats, and that was just enough to gain a few congressional seats. Voters were almost as leery of the opposition party as they were of the one in power.
"Abortion was one factor," ABC News found in the same exit polling that saw Democrats floundering on economics. The majority of Americans are broadly pro-choice, and those who strongly care about the issue voted for Democrats. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, some Republicans' emphasis on abortion restrictions hurt them, especially with younger voters, despite pre-election backpedaling.
Republicans' emphasis on election denialism and former president Donald Trump also did damage. "Voters by 61-35 percent said Biden was legitimately elected," said ABC News. They didn't want to revisit an over-and-done election, especially on behalf of a former White House resident every bit as unpopular as the current guy. Notably, Republicans who left the past in the past and avoided ballot-box grievances to campaign on policies did well, such as Joe Lombardo, who flipped the Nevada governor's office by focusing on the economy, crime, and school choice.
But, in many cases, voters had unpalatable options. They responded by splitting the difference and leaving the federal government divided between feuding factions so that neither can get much done.
That's not to say that Americans held a national meeting and decided to steer a middle course between brands of incompetent craziness. Frankly, Zoom couldn't handle the traffic. In fact, lots of Americans join in the lunacy, endorsing terrible economic fantasies, bizarre conspiracy theories, and a deep-seated and even violent loathing of those who embrace competing brands of political cultiness. Americans are nuts, but, fortunately, they balance each other out by breaking along fairly even lines in their madness. The result is an unintentional crowd-sourced moderation that prevents the worst excesses of either major political faction, at least on a national scale.
"Through the magical mechanism of mass voting, Americans express a persistent impulse toward divided government," marvels David Von Drehle at the Washington Post. "Are we, by some wonderfully stable group-mind, protecting ourselves from politics gone wild? Knowing how closely divided we are, our atomized wisdom adds up vote by vote to a hobble for both parties—binds them in an endless three-legged race, rather than risk winner-take-all."
The resulting gridlock isn't intentional, and it's certainly not coordinated. It's also not stable—a percentage point or two in either direction, even a few redrawn congressional seats, and we'll easily be back to dominance by one horrible faction over us all. Then its leaders will inevitably insist they've been handed a mandate to inflict their ideological fever dreams on the helpless public.
The gridlock also isn't total. The increasingly autocratic nature of the presidency allows enormous room for the nation's chief executive to act unilaterally. Through executive orders and memoranda, presidents enact policy changes that should go through Congress (if they're permissible at all) in a manner befitting elective monarchs. The only real check on that power is the willingness of the courts to remind the country that, while rule-by-decree is a form of government, it's not one permitted by the Constitution.
But Congress, at least, is very limited by partisan divisions in what it can do.
Interestingly, Americans claim they don't like gridlock and want a Congress that gets things done. "A slim majority of Americans are worried that the midterm elections will result in divided government and gridlock," Axios/Ipsos pollsters noted in October. The problem, of course, is that what Americans want done doesn't all come off the same menu; what roughly half of them favor enrages the other half. The resulting unhappiness is a large part of why, after the recent midterms, Democrats will no longer control both houses of Congress along with the presidency.
So, gridlock, with all of its faults and instability, is what we have, and we should be thankful for that. A hobbled Congress isn't a policy, it's certainly not a solution, and it's not sustainable for the long term. But gridlock can give us a bit of a national breather, and that may be the best we can hope for from a destructive political system and a divided electorate.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
I’m all for people wanting to vote at age eighteen, but it would be nice if they were informed, instead of emotional, voters. We can’t have a democracy based on ignorance. This last election made no sense. One issue voters, such as abortion, make no sense. We have to look at the good of the country, not personal interests.
And a pony, too.
Guessing you are 18 or somewhere close; you have not a single clue as to where you speak.
Better at 30.
Gridlock is pretty sweet.
Just about the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is spending billions of dollars on an indefinite proxy war to spite the country they blame for Hillary Clinton losing an election to a game show host. And it's not like that has the potential to blow up in our faces.
#StandWithUkraine
Gridlock would be WAY more effective if deficit spending weren't allowed.
And a galloping regulatory state that is in no way limited by an inactive Congress.
This is a profoundly stupid take for anyone actually desirous of liberty and limited government. Which means it is entirely on point and in character for TooSilly.
Correct
Agreed on the galloping regulatory state, and also with the author’s point about the disturbing rule-by-decree piers of the modern Presidency.
Still, I’d be interested to know just how much of the nightmarish economic policies of the last two years could have been effectively opposed if we had had the configuration of the incoming Congress in place?
Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. ~”b20 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt.OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
We don’t need gridlock. We need to dismantle the democrat agenda. Plus eliminate all the unconstitutional federal agencies like the Department of Education, HUD, etc.. all a ‘breather’ does is delay total Marxism a few years.
Two steps forward, one step back. More like two steps forward, one step forward, two steps forward, one step forward...
You do The Dialectic and you turn yourself around, that’s what it’s all about!
There is nothing wrong with deficit spending. That is just another idiotic meme that people, who are gross ignorant about macro-economics, shout. If you own a home, you deficit spent.
Keynsian economics doesn't work. Never has..it was created to get the Brits out of a very specific problem of wage contracts post WW1 as the Brits told they people they won hence could not really allow austerity and later business cycles to lower wages.
Aggregate demand can't be measured. A factory not running might be for a host of reasons. Deficit spending is robbing future consumption for what? Govt can't pick winners and losers can they? and it screws up the natural cycle of savings versus consumption which does a good job via interest rates regarding capital investment (long term) versus immediate consumption. And lastly it props up the problem which is govt screwing around with rates and money printing.
It is bunk and always has been. I'd call it astrology but that would be an insult to astrologers...
We had a POTUS who was aimed in the right direction and TDS addled shits like Sandra now owns droolin' Joe, asshole.
Hmmm.
I wonder, now that it is the Democrats that control the Senate by the slimmest of margins, if we are going to hear anymore about how “unfair” it is that smaller states like Arizona and Nevada carry as much weight as more populated states like, say, Florida and Texas.
Of course not. It's only when the Democrats can't get control of the Senate that it really matters.
Same with the electoral college. It's only white supremacist or whatever they called it, when it doesn't play out to their advantage.
I think the contradictory message of people wanting government to get things done and yet choosing divided government does make some sense. People want government to address problem and issue but do so in a thoughtful balanced manner. People look for different parties to work together to craft moderate compromised laws. Laws and programs that address what government can address in a cost-efficient manner.
There are plenty of things that could get done if the parties worked together. Addressing abortion access would cost the government little. Addressing Dreamers would cost little. Parties could look to cuts in program by finding agreement on the cuts. There will not be big cuts, but some cuts are better than nothing.
Will any of this happen? Probably not and we will see little more than partisan mudslinging. Which is not the outcome people wanted when they chose divided government.
I doubt people "choose" divided government on purpose.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given authority to address “abortion access”, to use your dishonest and banal euphemism?
14th amendment under right to privacy.
no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
No, see the Dobbs decision.
Dobbs was preceded by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell, which both rejected the idea that the Cobstiturion protects a right to bodily autonomy.
Buck v. Bell was a *&^% decision.
So was Roe v. Wade.
bodily autonomy is a canard when it comes to abortion.
that's why it's such a contentious issue.
Murdering babies should universally be considered bad.
Agreed.
The difficulty with the abortion issue centers around that very question. When does it become a baby with personhood that deserves legal protection from violence?
Most agree it is sometime after the initial conception and sometime before birth.
39 States have already defined when life begins with Fetal Homicide laws. Why should the definition of when life begins for fetal homicide be different then abortion with regards to when life begins?
that is a good legal question but nevertheless, most people dont think that killing/removing the fetus in, say, the first week of the prgnancy is the same as murdering a baby that has achieved personhood say, one week from birth.
I,Woodchipper, At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy (any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization.)
Dobbs is Alito masturbating to his religious beliefs in public.
You should mention your idea to Lindsey Graham. The Supreme Court in Dobbs said the Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortions, it did not say the Federal Government could not pass a law guaranteeing access.
Please note that I am not saying Roe should be written into law but suggesting a compromise. For years Republican have pointed to abortion limits in Europe and those might be the basis for a compromise. Limit abortions to a responsibly early time in pregnancy, say 15 weeks, with provisions for medically necessary abortions past that time.
We had compromise , they killed it.
The opposite of no abortion ever, is abortion mandatory ... such as China's one child rule (enforced roundabout-ly). The middle compromise position is abortion "sometimes" ... under rules and guidelines that we already had. Relatively unfettered 1st tri, strict guidelines 2nd tri, and pretty much outlawed unless threat of deathly consequences in the 3rd tri.
We had compromise... the bible thumpers killed it.
If abortion isn't the initiation of force against an individual, what is?
If depriving a woman of a medically necessary medical procedure isn't a denial of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, what is ?
And before someone chimes in that abortion isn't necessary...
https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(22)00536-1/fulltext
The journal article, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, describes the experience of two large Texas hospitals over a period of eight months following that legislation. The authors, who care for patients at those hospitals, describe how their hospitals managed 28 women who presented at less than 22 weeks’ gestation with serious complications following the ban on abortion.
Without the ability to offer abortion to their patients, all 28 women were managed expectantly. This is a medical way of saying that they waited for something terrible to happen. That wait lasted, on average, nine days.
During that nine days of waiting, here is what was achieved for the babies: 27 of the patients had loss of the fetus in utero or the death of the infant shortly after delivery. Of the entire cohort, one baby remained alive, still in the NICU at time of the journal article’s publication, with a long list of complications from extreme prematurity, including bleeding in the brain, brain swelling, damage to intestines, chronic lung disease. and liver dysfunction. If a baby survives these complications, they often result in permanent, lifelong illnesses.
During those nine days of waiting for an immediate threat to maternal life, here is what happened to the women of that cohort: Most of them went into labor, or had a stillbirth, which meant the medical team could then legally intervene and empty the uterus. Fifty-seven percent of those pregnant women had some sort of complication, and for about a third of them, it was serious enough to require intensive-care admission, surgery, or a second admission to the hospital. One of the 28 patients ended up with a hysterectomy, which means she will never carry a pregnancy again. The authors of the article estimate, based on their pre-September practice, that about half of those maternal complications would have been avoided if immediate abortion had been offered as a choice. But of course, post-September in Texas, these women didn’t get a choice.
Almost no abortions are ‘medically necessary’. So cut the shit.
You're talking past each other.
True. I can't tell if he is ignorant, stuck in an ideology, or just plain trolling. So I'm going to exit here.
Baaa, baaa ...
Posts falsely claim abortion is never medically necessary.
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/ap/factcheck/posts-falsely-claim-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary/article_ab782f18-0474-11ed-b8e5-4777733aab81.html
LOL this article
---------------
"THE FACTS: Doctors say there are multiple situations in which abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the pregnant mother."
--------------
It then goes on to explain numerous situations EARLY IN THE PREGNANCY which can force a medical abortion.
-------------
"Those situations include a pregnant woman’s water breaking before 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to Dr. Kristyn Brandi, a practicing OB-GYN and abortion provider and the board chair for the advocacy organization Physicians for Reproductive Health. When a woman’s water breaks far too early, it makes it unlikely a fetus’ lungs will be able to develop enough to survive."
If a fetus can’t survive outside the womb, ending that pregnancy is considered an abortion. In addition, any delivery before 20 weeks of pregnancy is medically defined as an abortion, according to Brandi. The term “preterm delivery” isn’t typically used until after 20 weeks or even later, at 23 or 24 weeks, when the fetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb, she said.
----------------
Are these the late-term abortions we're talking about? No.
Did Alito carve out a preserve for early term abortions ? Did Texas relent and say only late term abortions are now illegal ? Did 11 states where abortion is right now illegal narrow their laws to only late-term abortions ?
No. So then we are talking about all abortions , now aren't we. Unless you can show me on the books where early abortion is perfectly okay and untouched by the bible thumpers in Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
Individual? Yikes! Talk about misuse of or redefining a word.
When does an individual exit? Is it at mere fertilization or at a later point. Many cultures past and present don't restrict abortion before quickening. Is that your limits or what? Your question cannot be answered before the definition of an individual is made.
This analysis could not be more wrong. 100%. 180 degrees from reality.
Almost everyone wants government action -- for the issues they care about. Conservatives don't want "green energy" government action. Progressives don't want "close the borders" government action. It depends on the government action.
Ending up with gridlock government is just an accidental happenstance of an almost evenly divided country on what government actions are desired. It's almost no one's deliberate outcome.
You cover the conservatives and the progressive, but what about the people in the middle. The people who wants the road maintained, good public schools, health care access for people, want police and fire services and a number of other things. Now many of these things are local, but local government depend on state and the Federal government for support.
It's funny what's now "middle of the road. "health care access"? " a number of other things" Um yeah, sure.
I have been hoping for divided government, it is a disaster when one entity controls it all. Maybe it will slow the spending of money we don't have. Nah probably won't. I did like what Musk said this week on a tweet about civil discussion on twitter. If only we could have a president and congress that worked together for the PEOPLE and not for unions or business.
almost half the states are really one party states now. with the GOP getting wise to mail in ballots the insanity around elections will multiply taking days or weeks to get a result with the losing side believing it was stolen. We are headed to more partisanship like we haven't seen since 1850s. Two very different views of America and each side hating the other. Three ways this can go:
1. Decentralization from DC with large federal govt budget cuts. Countries in Blue States that are Red can move to nearby Red States. The Union stays together but the days of empire are over.
2. National Divorce
3. Civil War
1 is the best option. It isn't going to occur. Pick your poison after that...3 is horrible but I honestly fear it is going down that road with the left having to win at all costs.
How can that be? Each voter gets to vote only for a candidate, and not register degree of enthusiasm or confidence even for that single candidate or their opponents. How can you infer anything like what you wrote from the overall result of all those elections?
Enthusiasm will be demonstrated with the presence or absence of riots in January
Exactly. We are individuals, not collectives or aggregates.
"(Magic 8 Ball predicts: both will double-down on being wrong)"
Nope. Because they weren't wrong. The voters were wrong. Both parties would prefer to get rid of those troublesome voters.
Dissolve the people and elect a new one.
/attributed to Bertolt Brecht
That’s the point of open borders.
The left/establishment/dems have gotten rid of voters.
They are totalitarians, and will only be stopped by force.
If they are not stopped, your life will be forfeit.
Watch the birdie! The Rs and Ds will be "bitterly divided" on hot-button culture war bills, but in the background they will jack up spending on this that and the other.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link.............>>> onlinecareer1
Yup. Bicker bicker bicker until the budget gets to the floor, then they all gotta come together to pass it otherwise animals in the D.C. zoo don't get fed. Same old shit been going on since Reagan.
The increasingly autocratic nature of the presidency allows enormous room for the nation's chief executive to act unilaterally.
It's not the chief executive you've got to worry about (although his disregard for the Constitution is appalling enough) so much as the executive branch agencies who will pursue their own aspirations to bureaucratic power in the absence of clear direction from the executive or legislative branch. I mean, just look at Biden's cabinet of incompetent clowns - do you really think they're running things? Pete Buttigieg, Jennifer Granholm, Alejandro Mayorkas, Kamala Harris - I wouldn't trust these people to run a lemonade stand, they sure as hell aren't running the government.
Agreed - but if they reign in the agencies, they might have to accept some responsibility for the agency actions.
The problem is reining in the bureaucracy is that any attempt to do so raises public outcry. Hell, even our hosts here at Reason threw a tantrum when the W. Bush administration tried to put forward the theory of a unitary executive. And that's nothing more than the basic high school civics lesson that the President is supposed to control the Executive branch. Of course, if the President doesn't, effectively nobody controls the bureaucracy. Or at least no elected officials. And that effectively means that the bureaucracy is a superior, unelected, branch of government unaccountable to the people. How anyone gets from there to increased individual liberty is anybody's guess.
Overturn Wickard v. Filburn?
That'd be nice. But, I don't see that happening any time soon. And even that leaves huge swaths of the MIC, the security state, the public health bureaucracy, etc. unscathed.
And barring some magic intervention by the Nazgul, libertarians have to figure out what to do about the permanent bureaucracy and the administrative state. And, from what I've seen, regime libertarians have been utterly derelict on the topic. It's almost as if, as long as they get their pot, Mexicans and butt sex, they're okay being ruled over by an authoritarian mandarinate.
And barring some magic intervention by the Nazgul, libertarians have to figure out what to do about the permanent bureaucracy and the administrative state.
I've argued with self-described libertarians who literally cheered on the administrative state-- while screeching that everyone around them was a 'faux libertarian'.
"Oh, but these executive agencies are an unfortunate necessity!" they said. "We can't expect members of congress to be experts in the minutiae that the alphabet agencies such as the EPA deal with on the day-to-day!"
How to get from here to there is what Hayek called Rechtsstaat
Basically a federal judiciary that explicitly protects individual rights, focused solely on administrative law, and not deferential to either bureaucrats or even legislature
That's well and good, as long as the decisions of the judiciary are accepted and respected. You don't think one party or the other might want to gut the judiciary by, say, packing courts with their toady judges if they could get away with it?
New York asks how many divisions your judiciary has?
That sounds like it would just end up as more democrat judicial activism. No thanks.
Does anyone here still seriously believe that the writers here are anything other than soft statists?
Because your point is spot on, and supernova blindingly obvious to anyone who has watched the Federal government in action.
TooSilly celebrating 'gridlock' when he might as well be celebrating an extra slice of prison loaf.
Does anyone here still seriously believe that the writers here are anything other than soft statists?
I'm not sure I'd describe them that way. It's more nuanced than that.
I would say they are corporatists for sure-- often turning the other way when corporations collude with government, as long as there's a fig-leaf of a "corporate autonomy" argument somewhere in the picture. Big Tech censorship is a perfect example of this.
Corporations being nothing more than government sanctioned vehicles for the purpose of extending government authority the distinction seems rather ephemeral.
Not to say that the writers here understand or recognize that reality. Tools exist to accomplish intended tasks even though tools lack the ability to have intent.
I want to see 0 bills get passed in the next two years.
Me too, I don't see why we need lawmakers in congress every year with numerous amounts new legislation. They never found a dollar they did not want.
>>But the election results stand as an expression of
exactly sufficient fortification.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link.............>>> onlinecareer1
Although I agree with the sentiment here overall, it's not clear to me why "a breather" is a good thing at this point. Brinksmanship wasn't a good thing in international policy, and I doubt that it's a good thing with the national economy. The problem with pushing us to the edge of the chasm is that if you misjudge slightly, you may take us all with you when you fall off. Playing a game of musical chairs with government insolvency, not even knowing how many chairs are left while hoping you can blame the other guys if it all suddenly crashes doesn't seem like a good idea to me! If the monetary system is going to fail suddenly, I think I would prefer that it happen sooner rather than later while there is still some infrastructure left to recover with.
There is zero chance the Republicans will be able to hold together and stop the Democrats.
Zero.
^ this
Gridlock is the best we can get in this modern world. I don't want the Democrat agenda, I don't want the Republican agenda, I'm hoping they spend all their energy yelling at each other.
One is Guido, the other Luca. Both want to break a different kneecap. Bipartisanship means both kneecaps gets broken.
"But you gotta support Guido! Otherwise Luca Brasi breaks your kneecap!"
So what if Congress is divided? The law enforcement and regulatory state rule the country; Congress is a Kabuki theater sideshow; the Presidency is a marionette play; the Judiciary is a random gang of despots.
The only deadlock is in the irrelevant parts of the government.
Correct
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
I interpret the election results to be a rejection of the Wokers on the Left and the Wokers on the Right. Let's be realistic; both parties are controlled by their extremists so that both parties are controlled by Wokers, i.e insufferable know-it-all bigots who believe that they alone are GOD's anointed ones and the other party is spawn of Satan.
BoTh SiDeZ!!!
actually a grid locked congress is huge answer to our problems. given that everything government does is bad for us, when they do nothing we're always better off. and certainly stopping anything the senile one wants to do is a great thing.
On the other hand, anything they DO agree on is certain to be a nightmare.
"a lot better than lawmakers set loose"
Huh... And for some reason I thought the US Constitution was suppose LIMIT them.
Is the USA already forgotten?
of course you know that is an outdated notion. the constitution is a living & breathing document.
Or put simpler as I've said before; The USA has been conquered (its an outdated notion) by a foreign 'woke' National Socialist (syn; Nazi) [WE] mob RULES - Regime.
Hitler didn't invade Germany.. National Socialism invaded Germany.
Let's be honest - while those with an (R) behind their names have a slim majority in the House, the Far-Right-Nutjob Caucus will hold all the cards so the Republican House leadership won't be in control of that side of the floor.
What really got me in this election were all the sheep in CA and MI who re-elected the governors who went full totalitarian on them during the Chinese Flu, and those in NY who elected the governor who came in after Cuomo had raped them, continuing the screw. Very sad to see. And those fools in PA who elected a brain-damaged man as Senator. Better gridlock than more Dem bullshit.
"The only real check on power is..."?
Is govt. out of control? No. It was never in control, by its victims, the public.
We vote to be ruled by others who are given the permission to use the initiation of force, threaten, and judge themselves, their performance, their limits.
Is it any wonder they constantly expand their authority (power)? What would stop them? The public? How? Once you vote, you lose control. You forfeit your rights.
Disagree? Tell me: Who will protect you from your protectors?
You gave away your political power, your sovereignty, when you voted to let other run your life, e.g., make you obey rules (laws) you judge immoral, unjust, impractical.
What safeguards are in place? None, except non-violent boycott or violent revolt.
Do you have the courage to admit it? Or even consider it? Free yourself, or self-enslave. It's up to you.
You skipped the "rules" over the political powers.
A problem that arises by cheer-leading "democracy" over a Supreme Law.
The safeguards were the US Constitution, Sworn Oath of Offices & SCOTUS....
But when all those safeguards are violated by electing treasonous criminals who **ignore** the very supreme law (very definition of the USA) they swore to uphold; then there comes a time when defending the USA with violence is the only alternative.
It'll require a CORRECT conscience acknowledgement of what the USA is by voters and their representatives before it can be restored.
You can't ignore and change the very definition of a nation with BS treasonous propaganda-ideology - limitless "democracy" without toppling the nation itself.
Or put in simpler language.
"democracy" doesn't ensure any Individual Rights, Freedom or Justice.
The US Constitution does all that.
Ignoring the US Constitution is ignoring everything this nation takes pride in.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by (gbf-12) doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com