Problem:
Frequently, the government seems mired in inaction, unable to legislate new policies because of ideological conflict, party differences, or a standoff between the executive and legislative branches of the government. Such a situation is known as gridlock (Brady and Volden 1998). Gridlock may reflect the fact that politicians are taking stands in accord with contradictory values and are unable to reach a compromise. However, gridlock also occurs when politicians are engaged in power struggles in which who is in control is more important than what gets done (Chiou and Rothenberg 2003). Gridlock can occur at any level of government. In the late 1990s, a number of states experienced gridlock because they had an increased number of decisions to make after the federal government deferred certain issues to the state level (Levy 1999). For example, in New York the 1999 gridlock prevented passage of the state budget, which was three months late. This delay hampered planning by schools and other nonprofit groups, and important health care proposals languished in political limbo. Gridlock is likely to maintain or even intensify the failure of trust. A government mired in inaction appears weak to the public it supposedly serves.