Critics who claim so are partially right. It peaked in the early 1990s, when George Bush faced a Democratic Congress. Fully 65 percent of the 23 most salient agenda issues remained unresolved when the 102nd Congress drew to a close in 1992. With the arrival of unified government under Bill Clinton and congressional Democrats after the 1992 elections, gridlock still remained at an historic high, with more than half of the 16 most visible issues left in limbo when the 103rd Congress adjourned. But gridlock does not simply trend upward.
Pundits typically round up some usual suspects to explain unusually high levels of gridlock.
Numerous explanations have been offered, for example, for the extreme gridlock that has stymied the current Congress. Among them are divided party control of government, the upcoming presidential election in 2000, the razor-thin majority in the House, and the meager safety cushion provided by a budget in the black for the first time in 30 years. All are plausible explanations for the current impasse in Washington. Table 1 Arguments about the effects of divided government traditionally revolve around the importance of political parties for bridging our separated legislative and executive institutions. Unified party control is necessary, the argument goes, for ensuring that the two branches share common policy and electoral motivations.