Gridlock Isn’t Bad When It’s Wanted
The Providence Journal editors did their best, Sunday, to blame Republicans and otherwise minimize the culpability of President Obama for his questionable recess appointments during the dubious recess that legislators don’t believe they had. It’s curious to note that no mention is made of the fact that two of the four nominees were put forward just two days before the Senate’s scheduled adjournment, not leaving time for even basic background checks. Hardly gridlock.
But what’s interesting is the notion that the American people care about this sort of battle:
On purely political grounds, the president would seem to be in a strong position. Many Americans can readily sympathize with his frustration since the 2010 elections saddled him with stronger opposition and a Republican-led House.
Who, exactly, do the editors believe did the saddling? (Or is “many” a term indicating “people with whom we associate”?) By the election results alone, we can see that many Americans thought it important to stop, or at least slow, President Obama’s rampage through the national laws. Many of those who care about bureaucratic appointments, at least to the point of being aware that they exist, may very well want gridlock.
And even those who do not might pause to consider — as the editors do not — whether the president bears some responsibility for nominating candidates whom his duly elected opposition will find uncontroversial enough to expedite their confirmation.