Learn To Love The Gridlock
Interesting point from Supreme Court Justice Scalia, from a post over at Patterico.com. Scalia spoke at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:

So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our govenment. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary, but there's a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that have a bicameral legislature. England has a House of Lords, for the time being, but the House of Lords has no substantial power; they can just make the [House of] Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate; it's honorific. Italy has a senate; it's honorific. Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature equally powerful. That's a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion.

Very few countries in the world have a separately elected chief executive. Sometimes, I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers, and when I get there I find that all I'm talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don't even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive. In all of the parliamentary countries the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There's never any disagreement between them and the prime minister, as there is sometimes between you and the president. When there's a disagreement, they just kick him out! They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature.

The Europeans look at this system and say "It passes one house, it doesn't pass the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. it passes both, and this president, who has a veto power, vetoes it," and they look at this, and they say (adopting an accent) "Ach, it is gridlock." I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there's a lot of it going around. They talk about a disfunctional government because there's disagreement... and the Framers would have said, "Yes! That's exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power because the main ill besetting us -- as Hamilton said in The Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate: "Yes, it seems inconvenient, inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won't be so bad." This is 1787; he didn't know what an excess of legislation was.

Unless Americans can appreciate that and learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock which the Framers believed would be the main protector of minorities, [we lose] the main protection. If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority [and] they think it's terribly unfair, it doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system. Americans should appreciate that; they should learn to love the gridlock. It's there so the legislation that does get out is good legislation.

Chris Christie also applauded "divided government."

And here's how "Occupy Wall Street" promotes the antithesis of what divided government does. Robert David Graham blogs at Errata Security (a very interesting long post):

The occupiers were inspired by the Arab Spring, where the people took their countries back from powerful dictators. But they forget that those dictators similarly took power at the head of populist movements that removed their predecessors and that they ruled "in the name of people". Colonel Gaddafi didn't promote himself to General because that was presumptuous, he was just a man of the people.

I found the occupiers had the same totalitarian attitude, though they don't see it as totalitarian. Yes, their loving acceptance of those who disagree with them is astonishing, but it's totalitarian. It asks that people give up their individuality to the state the occupiers are creating. Rather than free speech, the protest has a sort of "managed speech" to make sure everyone has equal time. There is also the flip side, that not to join the movement or to disagree with the protesters means that you are working against the interest of the people.

We have seen this before in history, such as during the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. After they ran out of nobles, the Committee for Public Safety started beheading political rivals -- even those of their own party who helped overthrow the royalty. Their implicit thinking was this: I support the people. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are acting against the people and must be beheaded. Or to paraphrase in the modern idiom, "you are either with us or against the people".

The protesters have been settling on the idea that the conflict is the 99% against the 1%. But since the country is evenly divided between Democrat and Republican, they represent, at best, the interests of 50% against the 1%. No matter how poor, Republicans don't see socialism as being in their own interests. Instead of chanting "We are the 99%" they should be chanting "We are the 50%", but they seem immune to seeing things from this perspective.

A note on Graham by Graham:

I'm a libertarian, which means I'm interested in the connection between populism and totalitarianism, which we libertarians see as the same thing.

And more on blaming Wall Street:

By the way, while Wall Street may be responsible for bad things, it is Wall Street who financed putting a million miles of fiber optic cables crisscrossing continents and under oceans. It is Wall Street that financed the thousands of cell towers. It is Wall Street from which venture capital comes to finance startups like Twitter. Thus, tweeting "Down with capitalism" from your iPhone for those around the word to read seems to be the most ironic thing a person can do. The live stream from the protest site, shared with 12,000 (at this moment) people across the Internet is a testament to Wall Street's allocation of capital that these protesters fight against. [Obligatory Monty Python reference]

That the protest is dominated by Internet savvy youths exploiting social media is frequently mentioned. But what is not mentioned is the fact that the protesters are overwhelmingly college students, or recent graduates who still haven't found jobs. They aren't just any college students, but the stereotypical sort that you might expect to be involved in campus activism, such as graduate students in "Gender Studies." I found nobody with engineering or science degrees, but many from arts and acting colleges. After talking with one guy for a while about unemployment and his difficult in finding a job after college, I found out that he was a "poet." I'm not sure he understood that employers aren't looking to hire poets. The only person I met that had a political science degree was one of the police officers "keeping the peace."

Graham link via Cato