gerrymand government

POLARIZATION

Why is bitter partisanship viewed as a bad thing? Is not grid lock the best case scenario? (Good government George Will and David Broder be damned). Congress in a bind means a lack of over governance - well one can wish anyway. Congress could easily take a decade off and life would go on pretty much unfettered (most spending is defacto automatically renewed anyway - big issues that need to be addressed are not touched). Dick Armey called bipartisanship date-rape when he was in the minority. A consensus is something that offends no one and nobody believes in fully. Convictions are a true sign of character - not watered down "can't we all get along". Better to wait for a title wave like '80 or '94 to get a mandate than crafting one out of twigs, pebbles and twine. A big deal is made of the polarization of the country into the mislabeled red and blue states (I thought commies were red - and blue is the Torrie colour). Well really, politicians are not more partisan but the parties are. The parties were more a social class vehicle than an ideological soul mate fraternity. Goldwater, bless his soul, changed that with a truly ideological campaign, not a coalition crazy glue contraption, and presently the parties are aligned along political lines which is more proper. The fact that most house districts are uncompetitive is not a sin in and of its self. It makes sense that the districts are created to reflect our segregated living arrangements - progressives in the inner core and conservatives in the exurbs - they are more accurately represented by one party leaning districts so long as the overall composition is not overly distorted. Good government types abhor this arrangement but they are missing the true travesty - a lack of term limits - true limited government. And now with incumbent protection reform (McCain Finegold) the chance to unseat a big porker is very remote. The constitution reads "We the people.." but that has become "We the few lifetime office holders..."