As many analysts and pundits predicted, the 2010 midterm elections proved to be disastrous for the Democrats.  The Republicans gained sixty seats in the House and added six seats in the Senate to cap an apparent rejection of Democratic policy over the past two years.  These resurgent Republicans, led by Speaker-to-be John Boehner of Ohio, have pledged to cut federal spending, extend the Bush tax cuts, and repeal the healthcare reform bill.

But this will prove challenging, if not impossible, since the Republicans control only the House of Representatives.  Though legislation to slash federal spending, for example, will cruise through the House, it will meet some resistance in the Senate.  And even if the Senate approves the legislation, which essentially lies in the hands of the center-right Blue Dog Democrats, President Obama will most likely veto this legislation.  The Republican legislation will then die on the floor of Congress, as the GOP does not have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

This plausible scenario forecasts gridlock in Washington for the next two years, partly due to the increasingly partisan political atmosphere in government and the country.  Democrats and Republicans must work together in the near future to raise the debt ceiling, which allows the federal government to continue functioning by increasing the amount of debt it can accrue.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, government will be forced to shut down immediately.  This has never happened, but the elections of many Tea Party candidates make this a more conceivable possibility.  Many of these far-right candidates, like senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky, advocate smaller government and less federal spending, and appear uncompromising in their stance.

This issue shows a potential ideological conflict that may arise between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment.  Since the conservative resurgence of the late 1970’s, the Republican Party has proved much more effective than their Democratic counterparts in uniting its members behind legislation.  This trend is often attributed to the differing views among liberal and centrist Democrats, and the ideological consistency of the Republicans.

Now, however, the Republicans seem just as ideologically diverse as the Democrats.  Though the Tea Party has directed most of its ferocity against the Democratic establishment, they have criticized the Republican leadership as well.  The challenge for Boehner and the rest of the party’s leadership will be to control and appease, if necessary, their far-right constituents.

The importance of a political majority to get anything done effectively in Washington is a new and worrying development.  The increasing ideological divide between the two parties, which is magnified in the echo chamber that is the national media, has made the possibility of compromise and bipartisan legislation seem impossible.  The Founding Fathers envisioned a government where compromise resolved conflicts and a political climate where change was not easy, but still possible.

The leaders of both parties should look towards the bipartisan alliance that emerged between Clinton and the Gingrich Republicans.  These two groups were able to put aside their ideological differences to pass meaningful and fiscally responsible legislation, something that seems strange fourteen trillion dollars of debt later.

The Democrats and especially the Republicans need to move back towards the center of the political spectrum.  This task certainly will not be easy, but is necessary to clear the partisan gridlock that has consumed the American political system, decreasing its effectiveness and leading some of its members to act irresponsibly.