When did we see legislative gridlock?

With their capitalistic attitude, Americans are sacrificing their own nation and ideology for money (Choate, 1990). They have a passion for greed, said a TV game anchor. The unwatched nations become their prey as these agents of influence apply their political game of war and terrorism and democracy and partnership and allies. A Spanish author, during her visit to Canada and spoke in a lobbying conference in Ottawa, which was aired through CPAC, calls President Bush as “Tarzan.

” A man, who goes to Iraq to rob the people of their oil, persuades the Mexican to give away their wealth to their friend, but kill the Afghanistan people for their poppies. The next thing, she added, Americans under President Bush are heading toward Iran for oil, but he is using his political bargaining power, balancing between wars or “just give it to me. ” When did we see legislative gridlock? Legislative gridlock becomes visible once the politicians, Congressmen, and legislators are abandoning their main duties, roles, and responsibilities and become “agents of influence” and “brokers.

” However, some Americans in the Gallup Poll consider that this legislative gridlock might be over (Cannon, 2006). They temper with every development effort (Sanford, 2004) even though they are not fit as agents of development (Colfer and Capistrano, 2005). As the agents of influence, they play between free market and concentration, democracy and control, and liberal society and social control estate and capitalism.

They claim competition as the key to efficiency, but the Kantian Theory of Corruption states that competition establishes radical evil (Grenberg, 2004). One must use evil to outdo the others or to make him or herself superior to the others and oppress the others as a way of survival in the global market competition. Many are coming from the market and politically appointed, for which they have no knowledge and background on how to govern the public.

However, they establish themselves as the executives who are “equally dismissive and arrogant, contributing in their own way to the creation of stalemates” (Pascale, Millemann & Dioja, 2000, 92). The legislative gridlock has shown how the agents of influence or the “brokers” are emphasizing on their self-interest and the interest of certain groups. As they abandon their principles, John Craig (2001) alleged, there is evil in the government. The legislative gridlock is here to stay unless we eliminate the “brokers’ and “agents of influence.

” A Canadian public servant pensioner and Harry Boyte (2004) said the radical evil would stay in the government unless we put public interest first and not individual interest first.


Anderson, J. (1983). Public policymaking. Boston, MA: Hougthon Miffin Austin, James (2000). The collaboration challenge. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Boyte, Harry (2004). Everyday Politics. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press Colfer & Capistrano Ed. (2005). The politics of decentralization: forest, people, and environment . London: Earthscan