Stephen Fletcher (Nov. 28 column) wishes for a "clear economic direction of government policy," and is satisfied, "even though I don't like any of it," that now he knows where the country is headed: gridlock in Congress.
And why would this be? "All the players are the same," he writes, so "the shenanigans for the next four years will be very much like the past four." More gridlock.
Yes, a majority of voters in the northeastern part of Michigan preferred Gov. Romney in their "trying to change the course of government." They were also over-confident their man would win. Without shame Republicans stated at the outset their goal was to make Obama a oneterm president-which is not exactly an economic position.
Sore-losers-indulging-in-sour-grapes quite explains the "secessionist movement afoot across the country," Mr. Fletcher mentions in his column. It's not about to reach critical mass, though, to result in "radical upheaval," as Mr. Fletcher puts it; the South will not rise again. But Texas reverting to Mexico from whence it came is not such a bad idea.
As for the necessity of Democratic making of new congressional rules "with the force of law," as Mr. Fletcher observes, it is a reasonable expectation because - in his own words - gridlock "won't allow for the passage of laws." This means when there are a bunch of extremists in Congress who hunker down and dig in when they've been disappointed, Congress has to make new rules to enable it to get something done. What remedy would Mr. Fletcher suggest?
Finally, I can explain the polarization in Congress Mr. Fletcher laments in his column. When mostly extremists choose to vote in primary elections, a majority of extremists will end up elected to Congress.