Among fairy tale movie flicks, “The Princess Bride” is top-notch. One scene in particular from that movie conveys the cleverness of the whole story. Set in a medieval kingdom, a young woman named Buttercup falls in love with a young man named Westley. Unfortunately, a ship on which Westley was traveling was attacked by the Dread Pirate Roberts. Believing Westley dead, Buttercup agrees to marry a prince named Humperdinck, after five years.

Shortly before the two are to be married, Buttercup is kidnapped by three men, Inigo Montoya, Fezzik and Vizzini. A mysterious man dressed in black pursues the three. First Montoya, then Fezzik stays behind to defeat or delay the mystery man. The man in black bests both, however, and catches up to Vizzini. The two men partake in an intellectual dance, trying to determine which of them would walk away with the princess-to-be.

Observing the disparity between the two in physical as well as mental ability, Vizzini noted, “It seems we are at an impasse.” The man in black proposed a combination of the two contests. Pouring two glasses of wine, he put poison in one of them. “The battle of wits,” he said, would end when Vizzini decided which glass contained the poison and both men drank their respective servings of wine.

Then follows one of the funniest mind-twisting scenes in movie history.

A similar impasse occurred in Congress recently, as they failed to avert “sequestration,” a 10-year process of spending cuts set to begin on Friday, March 1, 2013.

As it began, President Barack Obama took Republicans to task for their intransigence and obstructionism. “To set it right, both sides need to be willing to compromise,” he said. He also referred to the cuts as “dumb” and “arbitrary.” But those cuts were made in accordance with a law that Obama signed.

Shortly afterward, the Washington Post published a story stating Obama has been looking toward the 2014 election since his reelection in November, with a view toward gaining a Democratic majority in the U.S. House. One source in that story, Rep. Steve Israel of New York, said, “The president understands that to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives,” presumably in addition to a majority in the Senate.

Such thinking, that for anything to get done in Congress, we need a president, House and Senate all of the same party, is lazy. A Gallup poll from September, however, demonstrates that it is not unique to our political leaders — a record-high 38 percent of Americans prefered one-party government to divided government. Incidentally, that “change in preferences [was] driven mostly by Democrats.”

Members of both parties are at fault in this crisis of politics. Indeed, this example is only the most recent in a long train of incompetence at playing well with others.

Americans deserve action before the 2014 elections. If sequestration is as dire as our politicians have claimed, they deserve action now. What they do not deserve is politicians who put themselves and their party doctrines above what is best for the country. Self-assurance is a good thing, but to have so much self-assurance that we rule out tax increases or revenue increases or spending cuts to the military or entitlement reform or any option, is to assume infallibility.

None of us, however, are perfect, and none of us have all the answers. Having to interact with people who hold ideas different from our own is beneficial. The process by which one idea meets another is the process by which ideas get refined. Pluralism is good, and the Constitution encourages it. Without a systemic guarantee that the president, House and Senate will be of the same faction or party we, like Vizzini and the man in black, have two options: delay tactics such as electioneering, which can occur only so often, or participating in a contest together.

If a children’s fairy tale can demonstrate that, then what excuse do Obama and the members of Congress have?