I think it may be true that the country can't decide on what it wants, but instead because the public wants something it isn't getting, something it can't get.
Obviously people don't want to feel uncertain because of volatility in government. The gridlock is intended to curtail legislative havoc a single party might cause if it got too big.
The problem is partisan gridlock only staggers when party interests conflict. Even then, that type of legislation is likely less unreasonable because of its partisan origins - the originating party has to make it palatable through willingness to include concessions, listen to the other party's concerns, address them in modifications and reattempt getting it passed.
The thing is both parties share much in common, and much of what they'd both agree to expand is concerning if not disenfranchising.
- uncritical fealty to institutional authority
- endless war
- the disregard for our privacy in their approval of expanding surveillance
- their disavowal in the strongest terms of any obstacle to their right to secrecy because national security
- deregulating campaign funding
- complicating a law, legislating it, and then relying upon that expertise to guarantee a cushy retirement in the private sector
- a worsening addiction to defense spending
If anything, I'd say the gridlock actually makes it easier for government to grant itself inadequately-justified powers and broaden its scope beyond deemed appropriate. Voters in this political climate see more of its potential going towards negating a vote for the other guy rather than signaling which problems need most attention.
We have a situation where Congressmen/women ignore their constituents and avoid their own town-hall meetings. And when in Washington (to the voter's frustration) much time is wasted, and bitterly. I guess it makes sense that they exhibit the ability to agree mostly on measures that make the government more ruthless, but it's disappointing nonetheless.