I'm not convinced that such "old days" ever existed. I'm open to the idea, but the more I learn of history, the more it seems like the deals were the exception, not the rule. The system was designed from the beginning to make things difficult.
I like to consider all the compromises in the antebellum United States. They show up in the history books as great legislative successes, but in the end, a half century of dispute came down to a war.
"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." (Thoreau)
Gridlock in the US government is a feature, not a bug, if for no other reason than it forces polarized, mutually opposed interests to compromise their principles and self-interest to get anything done.
As someone who feels that most times new government initiatives have a net negative impact, a gridlocked system sounds like a decent outcome, all things considered.
- President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans
Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?