With control of Congress divided between the two parties, not much is happening in Washington, DC at the moment. Most people don't seem to be very happy about that: as of February 2012, only 10% of Americans approve of Congress. Gridlock, it seems, has very few champions. This is probably because voters are in general an unhappy lot. People participate in politics to bring about change -- protecting the status quo (knowing full well that the country and the world are fraught with problems) just doesn't motivate many people to volunteer for or donate to campaigns, let alone cast a ballot on Election Day. Right now, people are unhappy with Congress for different reasons. Staunch partisans want members of the other party to bow to their party's will. Moderates want Congress to work together to find happy compromises that will drive the partisans insane. Everyone (well, at least 90% of everyone), though, is unhappy at a government that is stuck in place and not instituting change of some kind.
Still, I wonder a bit why gridlock has such a universally poor reputation. Are people just inherently drawn to change and evolution, regardless of political philosophy? Part of it, no doubt, is that the chattering classes (be they historians, bloggers, or journalists) who help shape the nation's consciousness have reason to long to live in "interesting times" -- the more change, the better! It's just not interesting to talk about things staying the same. To actually be a regular American during the tenure of a "great historical figure" tends to be disastrous, though; Lincoln and FDR were bold presidents who dealt forcefully with crises (and whose parties had control of Congress during their presidencies), to be sure, but their presidencies were hellish times of death and hardship. The gridlocked Clinton presidency, on the other hand, was a time of prosperity. Even now the economy seems to be as improving even as Washington is perhaps as gridlocked as it ever has been (not that the two necessarily have anything to do with each other). If you're deeply invested in a particular political philosophy, gridlock can only be an impediment to the glorious future you want to see legislated into existence...on the other hand, though, if you're less of a believer and more of a skeptic when it comes to government and politics in general, I'm not sure why you'd necessarily view gridlock as being inherently bad.
So, could there be room in politics for a true "Gridlockian" movement? Perhaps not at the moment, but I think there are reasons why such a movement should exist. To support gridlock is to truly be a "conservative" not in the standard political sense but in the sense of wanting to keep things the way they are. Preserving the status quo may never be sexy, but in practice it means keeping the rules of the game the same. It means not forcing people and businesses to adjust to a steady stream of new taxes and new regulations -- instead, you just need to learn the rules on the books once and keep following them. Stability and knowing what to expect from government aren't bad things, though the perpetuation of bad and unjust laws is a unfortunate side effect of "stability." Still, even something as scary and complicated as the tax code is easier to navigate if you don't have to relearn it constantly. Gridlock doesn't exactly mean that the government doesn't do ANYTHING, either. Instead, it just means that government does less and is more restrained in its choices of action; theoretically, a gridlocked government should still be able to tackle the Really Important Stuff provided that Congress and the president both agree that it's Really Important Stuff. For instance, I have absolutely no confidence that a gridlocked government would not go to war unnecessarily; war is always in the Really Important Stuff category so there'll always be room for a dangerous meeting of the minds. On the other hand, it also seems to be a given that some Really Important Stuff will never be acknowledged by one or the other party as Really Important Stuff due to the ideological blinders that all partisans wear.
What I like best about gridlock is that it limits the power of both the presidency and Congress. It's the checks and balances system in practice. Truthfully, we shouldn't need gridlock for the executive and legislative branches to check each other's power, but the perniciousness of the party system has made it so. Rick Santorum was just being honest when he said he voted for No Child Left Behind against his personal beliefs in order to be a "team player" -- political parties insist that individual legislators and executives to leave their principles behind when the party requires it. As long as that is the case, there is most definitely a place for gridlock and gridlockians in my opinion.
