Polls and Gridlock

The most recent Reuters poll, which ran in an article today, predicts that the Republicans will win the House of Representatives next month, but the Democrats will retain control of the Senate.  Obama's approval rating is at 43%, the worst of his presidency.

Poll numbers depend upon which poll you check, of course, and I'm not given to putting a lot of stock in them.  What I'd like to note in this blog is the following quote from the Reuters article:

"A split Congress could mean political gridlock in 2011 as the United States struggles to overcome high unemployment, the gaping budget deficit and a fierce debate over tax cuts. Much will depend on whether Obama and Republicans can work together."

The implication of that statement is that "gridlock" is a bad thing.  The liberal press (and Reuters fits that category) automatically assumes that it is the government's responsibility "to overcome high unemployment."  I will certainly grant than only the government can cut its own spending to reduce debt and lower taxes so that people can keep the money they've earned.    Those are matters, the main matters, almost the only matters that Congress should attend to next year.  Washington needs to get its own house in order before it starts telling Americans how to run theirs.

I do not accept the implication that "gridlock" is a bad thing, indeed, I would argue that about 99% of the time, "gridlock" is a good thing, for the less the federal government does, the more freedom Americans have to conduct their own affairs.  But that is the difference between the liberal and the conservative (or, in my case, libertarian) mind.  Dependence versus individual responsibility, government versus the people, power versus liberty.  It oughtn't be that way with government and the people it should serve, but it is, it always has been, and it always will be, history being our testimony to that fact.