Now that the Republicans have regained control of the House of Representatives, we hear almost daily cries from the Democrats and their minions in the media about the need to end “gridlock” and establish bipartisan consensus.

We are told that Americans dislike gridlock, and that consensus is the way to move forward. Yet, to our Founding Fathers, “gridlock” was the strong medicine needed then (and still needed today) against the malady of runaway government. For them, gridlock was the separation of powers and the checks and balances of a republican form of government designed to protect dissenting social, political and economic minorities from capricious, passionate, tyrannical majorities (mobocracy).

Gridlock then is useful in the judicious maintenance of the balance of political power and to restrain political passions aroused by self-serving demagogues.

Consensus leaders, on the other hand, frequently smooth the way for the implementation of collectivist or politically correct, feel-good policies, often with little citizen dissent. Citizens who oppose these policies are labeled as disruptive or mean-spirited obstructionists. Consensus may be achieved narrowly and does not always require large majorities or unanimity, as many citizens envision.

Free market economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that “the middle of the road leads to socialism,” and Lady Margaret Thatcher warned us, “Consensus is the negation of leadership.” Precisely, policy by consensus leads to socialism. Consensus builders oil the machinery of collectivism and oppress individual initiative and creativity, hampering the human mind.

It would seem that in theory consensus promotes the free exchange of ideas, but in practice, it does not. It stultifies that very exchange, as in George Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak and Thought Police that purportedly “safe guarded” language, but in reality restricted debate, limited expression, and did not allow dissent.

In today’s environment, outside the halls of Congress, in academia as well as popular culture, citizens who go against the current of formulated consensus are ridiculed, silenced and ostracized as being on the fringe and out of touch. Those who accept the intellectual shackles of consensus and conformity are easily manipulated by the consensus builders and become the proverbial sheep. Complaisance, as Aristotle reminds us, is the characteristic of the slave.

Consensus building advances guilt-contrived socialist policies, but real problems afflicting the nation, such as escalating national debt, budget deficits, perceived national security weaknesses, energy dependence, etc., fester unresolved. Only “feel-good,” forced compassion policies engendered by guilt, instigated by fear, and if all else fails, forced by coercion with the assistance of the opinion cartel, liberal media — are squeezed through and implemented.

And yes, call us mean spirited conservatives if you like, but the orgies of consensual socialism, legalized plunder and seductive fiscal irresponsibility must be opposed. Failure to do so will take us farther down the road of socialism and collectivism with the eventual loss of our cherished Republic.

Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., is a resident of Macon, GA.

This commentary was published in The Macon Telegraph on December 2, 2010. Copyright ©2011 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.