Gridlock. It used to be enjoyed only by those of us in cities big enough to officially have way too many cars. In NYC, the phenomenon occurs when an intersection becomes clogged with vehicles, those both already in the flow of traffic and those who want to merge with the flow, but are stymied by a similar glut of frustrated motorists clogging the next intersection.
The most frustrating thing about gridlock is that it can be prevented. We have a law in New York City referred to by the locals as “Don’t Block The Box”. There is a crosshatch of painted lines in the middle of major intersections. If your tires are touching one of them when the light turns red, you are officially blocking the box and, theoretically at least, subject to a fine of up to 350 of your hard-earned ducats.
All you have to do to avoid blocking the box – and in turn, gridlock itself – is not be the jerk who crams himself into the intersection just as the light turns red again, this in an effort to block merging traffic and secure a coveted spot at the back of the next big lineup of immobile and furious prisoners.
The theory here is that, if everyone agrees to wait until the light is green AND there is a space on the next block for your car, eventually the situation will right itself and an equal number of cars from each direction will enter the flow of traffic, like a zipper closing as the teeth from the left and right take turns joining together. (You’ll no doubt notice having never seen a zipper that occasionally decides to use two teeth from the left before one from the right.)
A new definition of gridlock.
It’s been a long time since I felt the satisfying comfort of a phrase whose meaning was wonderfully unambiguous. I was holding on to the word gridlock as a solely automotive term right up until the two primary factions of our dislocated government simply forgot how to deal with each other with any sort of aplomb, gravitas or maturity.
I don’t remember when it happened. But I do remember a wonderful Ken Burns documentary called The Congress. My on-again-off-again best friend, Netflix, delivered The Congress to me one evening when I was in the mood for a history lesson decidedly less pedantic than the type force fed to me through my old, but most surely not missed, high school feeding tube.
The documentary is something like 90 minutes long and I highly recommend it. But, for those of you with too much to do to and very little time in which to do it, allow me to save you 89 minutes and give you Ken’s primary and well constructed thesis. Our republic today enjoys its stance on the shoulders of giants because said giants built the legislative branch of our goverment around one word:
Compromise.
When Mr. Burns first lent me this tidbit of wisdom, I was unwilling to accept it. I went so far as to adopt a stance of righteous indignation right there on my couch. How dare our representative forefathers trade in the strength of their convictions for a non-offensive ride on It’s A Small World when they should be forcing a Space Mountain-sized dose of “it’s my way or the highway” down the throats of their enemies!
Ah, but therein lies the rub. The Republicans, the narrator intoned, were not the enemies of the Democrats or vice versa. They were simply men of an alternate mindset, one no less cogent or reasonable than that of their counterparts. Just different. And so, in the spirit of setting the cogs of modern governance in motion, the two sides would come together, clash to the point of outdoor-voices and wild gesticulations, and end up with a way forward that saw each party both giving and receiving pieces of its closest held convictions for the betterment of those Americans not elected to be present during these proceedings.
Where did all the adults go?
For those of you reading this blog post in the year 3015 after just freeing my antique laptop from the time capsule your robot unearthed on the land your family claimed via a post-apocalyptic Manifest Destiny kind of thing that will likely be the subject of a documentary published by a modern day Ken Burns somewhere around the year 3098, I’ll remind you that way back on August 2, 2011 the American government finally reached a level of self-delusion so insidous that it was compelled to join six enemies from each party in a thinly veiled PR campaign ostensibly to reduce government spending by decree of – wait for it – compromise!
Hopefully with the benefit of hindsight, you’ll be able to see without too much effort, how monumentally stupid this waste of time really was. Your robotic history tutor will no doubt explain to you, in a digitized approximation of Edna Krabappel‘s voice, that the political environment of 2011 was so clogged with vitriol and holier-than-thou that there was clearly no way in hell that Patty (co-chair), Max, John, Xavier, Jim, Chris, Jon, Rob, Pat, Jeb (co-chair), Fred and Dave would ever in a million years succeed in finding common ground on which processed lunch meat should be on their complimentary congressional deli tray, let alone how to alleviate our budget of 1.2 trillion dollars worth of national debt.
The law of unintended consequences.
I could absolutely give a crap about basketball. It’s just not my thing. But I found a piece on NPR’s Marketplace about another example of 2011 gridlock particularly interesting as it caressed my tired ears during my gridlocked drive home to lower Manhattan the other day.
It turns out that the NBA has something in common with our legislative branch other than over-inflated monetary rewards for failure. The argument they’re having about how over-inflated these rewards should be has become so combative that all proceedings have ground to a halt and nothing is getting done at all. Sound familiar?
My theory, the one that rouses me from slumber, covered in a cold, wet film of condensation in the middle of the night, is that a river of bile is flowing down from the House and Senate like so much waste from a ruptured water filtration conduit, and infecting the subconscious of every American, turning the color of our collective zeitgeist to a scrofulous and unsettling brown.
As I said, I’m not really going to shed a tear for Kobe Bryant the day he realizes that, personal finances being what they are, he should really put the Ferrari on Craigslist before sliding his American Express Black card through the Lamborghini dealership’s cash register.
But that NPR piece did mention a small army of local business owners, concession stand workers and whatever the basketball equivalent to Zamboni machine operators is who are now finding themselves financially t-boned because Kobe and his boss can’t agree on the color of the aforementioned Lamborghini. In other words, the many get screwed because the few are acting like children.
Please, someone take the high road.
I don’t know when or if this will change. My hope is that we have not fallen so far as to beset every future generation with less and less governmental efficacy as days go by, culminating in the systemic breakdown of the republic I personally hold dear.
I’m hoping and praying for a savior from either side of the isle who will put aside his or her ingrained pugilism, hit the breaks when the light turns red and stand up as a shining example of modern governance to declare to the world in no uncertain terms, “No! I will not block the box!”
-KJ
Gridlock is the feeling some may be experiencing. But, I think, using the word “gridlock” to discuss the situation with the Super Committee is actually promoting a false narrative. It implies that two groups of “honest brokers” are coming together for the good of our future … for We The People. Cue the patriotic music, jump to your feet, and have a big bite of hot apple pie. Okay, wake up- that’s certainly not at all what is happening here with the Super Committee.
The line that’s been fed to us by the mainstream media which supports the “honest broker” scenario regarding the Super Committee. The reality is, we do not have a debt problem in this country. We are among the richest countries on the planet. We have a problem with facts. What I mean by that is, if we are not operating from the same set of facts, we’ll never agree to compromise about anything. The best quote on the subject comes from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” We have a corporate media structure that does nothing but, advertise to us, and anesthetize us. They advertise the terms in which we should think about the issues and then those terms become the debate. Owned by six corporations
We do not have an honest conversation among statesman here. The problem is not that those 12 committee folk from different sides of the issues can’t come together to compromise. The problem is that they aren’t even talking about ideas to actually solve the real problems at hand. We’re watching an elaborate play where two sides argue for their constituents. By that, I mean, the corporations that gave them the money to have their seat in government in the first place. The cost of a Congressional campaign way back in 2002 exceeded $1 million per candidate, and Senate campaigns average over $3 million. Those numbers just keep rising and now the the Supreme Court has passed Citizens United and the corporations influence will be unleashed even further – (unlimited corporate campaign contributions) ’cause now they’ll be doing it legally. So, riddle me this: How can anyone, who has to beg for that much dough each term, be representing you and I ? Answer:
They are not. While these so-called representatives are in office they are not representing We the People, they are just making allegiances to big money interests and then representing Them. It’s no wonder we don’t hear ideas that would help working people, we hear twisted logic about debt and then it’s echoed in the mainstream media.
Do you hear that ? You have to listen closely it’s the sound of palms being greased.
There are very few politicians left in government that don’t fall into this category. That is our problem. We have a democracy problem, an economy problem, a lack of tariffs problem, an empire problem,
a healthcare problem, an out of control and unregulated financial services industry cherade,
a poverty disaster, and a mounting global climate crisis that is knock knock knocking on our doors like Edger Allen Poe’s, Tell-Tale Heart. And, we want to worry about debt? Deal with these real issues, and we’d truly be as wealthy as we should be.
So, maybe there is gridlock. But, the gridlock is not in the Super Committee.
The Super Committee is unconstitutional. It’s anti-democratic (much like a Politburo back in the Soviet Union. And, we know what happened with that, and their corrupt oligarchs, and their war in Afghanistan – just saying).’
The result of the Super Committee will not be good for the average person in this country. They are arguing about things that are unnecessary and I don’t know how much longer the people will support
a corrupt system that doesn’t care about human beings, even though they’ve paid for it with their
money, lives, blood, sweat & tears.
To me that is the gridlock we feel.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the super committee is unconstitutional! We are not a monarchy or dictatorship yet…so we need to be careful and re-read our 200 year young document. If leaders aren’t willing to uphold it, then why even have it?
Gridlock is a part of the political game, and often helps prevent pending disasters. Consider how often the legislature party in power differs from the executive branch in power. Obama had a democratic house, senate, and his executive branch, for the past three years, but did nothing about the debt or wars, and increased the debt by trillions. Obligatory campaign promises down the toilet. So, the people sent a message last November, and voted Republicans back in. Now we have a Republican house and Democratic executive branch–gridlock is now inevitable, until there is a change in office. Same thing happened to George W Bush–folks got fed up, and voted a democratic house in near the end of his last term, in 2006. Bush essentially spent money like a drunken sailor his first term, and in turn alienated a lot of right wingers; he acted on the faulty intelligence provided to him, then sent us into war, while curbing US Citizens’ rights with the Patriot Act. The Dems could have ran Mickey Mouse or Pluto in 2008, and would have won. Currently it is nearly impossible to run as a viable 3rd part candidate–I actually changed to the Libertarian party until I learned that I could not vote in any of the primaries. So, I went back to the Republican Party, some of which I disagree with. It really makes no difference if the Dems or Reps or in power–they are different wings from the same bird of prey. Both continue to champion big gov’t, even though both sides acknowledge that spending cuts are needed. The problem is that rather than reduce spending, the politicians merely, REDUCE THE RATE OF THE SPENDING INCREASES. This only kicks the can down the road, and makes it tougher for my kids, and everyone else down the road. One simple solution to this mess would be to limit all political candidates to 2 terms (how in the world can someone like Joe Biden or Barney Frank be re-elected and hold the same office for 30 years?), and why should they continue to receive a pension, or ANYTHING AT ALL, after they leave office? They should serve their term(s), then get back to work like the rest of us. Public servants my ass–it is the private sector folks who are the servants–paying their own bills, insurance, and salaries, AS WELL AS THE SALARIES OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR! Doing away with the pensions and perks, and limiting terms will help negate the “going along to get along” mantra–which is pandering-not leadership. When voting for our next President or Congress(man), folks may want to ask themselves who is the candidate they can trust, who’s message do they agree with, what is their past experiences, do they have a consistent voting record, and do they have the courage and conviction to truly lead. That is better than voting for someone simply because the controlled media says they are “electable.”
Well said, George. I share your frustration. And I love the idea of picking a candidate regardless of party, based on their courage and conviction to truly lead. But the thing you said about being electable is the part that worries me. Are there any electable politicians out there who really embody that courage and conviction? Is there any way to re-develop a political climate of compromise so we can move forward instead of sniping at each other for a living? I wonder.
Yes there is. Ron Paul the Libertarian, and Don Kuchenich or Ralph Nader, the Democrats (never thought I would stump for the left). Both are opposite wings, but agree on the BIG issues: getting back to sound money, ending the fed, and ending these asinine wars. Both truly care about our future. They don’t flip flop, and they don’t “go along to get along”. I believe compromise can be achieved with proper leadership, and that a few do have a backbone. The media has been ignoring those mentioned above, but watch out! While far-fetched, I believe it would be possible to shake things up with a joint run by Paul and Kuchenich. Now is the right time, and it is almost too late for anything else. They are good friends, and when Paul was asked about a potential running mate, guess who he mentioned? If more folks find out what Ron Paul truly stands for, and if he can hang on during these pre-primary stages, even the media will not be able to stop his momentem. Of course, the scary thing here is that a 3rd party in the general election, allows someone to be the new pres with less than 40% of the vote. Who knows, maybe someday we’ll end up with a Chinese pres who no one thought was ERECTABLE! So when people tell me they will not vote for so and so because they are not electable, I tell them straight up that their voting attitude is the cancer of our problems…