POLITICS OCTOBER 30, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There is a longstanding, inchoate sense among American voters that having president and Congress controlled by different parties makes for better governance--a view that the GOP is using to scare voters into voting against the "dangerous threesome" of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. After the Clinton years, that general sense became a kind of contrarian conventional wisdom of the commentariat as well. Earlier this week, John Judis made the counter-contrarian argument in favor of single-party rule, saying that divided government "is a curse, not a blessing." I'm not particularly afraid of the Democratic threesome--but Judis leaves me unpersuaded.
First, Judis disposes of the two eras that have persuaded many people of the virtues of divided government: Reagan's presidency (which Judis redefines as an era of unified government) and the last six years of Clinton's presidency (which he misremembers as a terrible time in American politics):
"Reagan is [the] somewhat harder case. In his first six years, he enjoyed what was functionally a united government, because he could count on a majority of Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats; only in his last two years did he have to deal with a Congress controlled by the opposition--and those, of course, were the years of the Iran-Contra scandal, where, on domestic policy, his administration ground to a halt.
"Now let's look at the more disastrous moments in the history of American administrations--where charges of impeachment were brought, and recriminations paralyzed the government. That would have to include the administrations of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton--all instances of divided government."
I'd say that Reagan only enjoyed a semi-united government during his first two years in office. GOP losses in the House in 1982 shifted the tone pretty dramatically. Iran-Contra arose, after all, in part because Oliver North sought to evade the Congressionally-imposed limitations on aid to the Contras-- limitations that were imposed between 1982 and 1984, when Judis would have us count the government as united under Reagan Republicans.
The simple fact is that Republicans never controlled the House during Reagan's eight years. If we want to reclassify the question as being one of liberal or conservative majorities rather than as Democratic or Republican majorities in the two houses of Congress, then we'd need to do that over all the cases--and what we'd be examining wouldn't really be the question of divided government at all. The Boll Weevil Democrats of the early ’80s were still Democrats, and that matters for the divided-government thesis. They supported Reagan's economic agenda but still voted for Democratic leadership in the House--and so the Democratic majority retained its control over committees, the investigative and oversight functions of the House, and so on. Speaker Tip O'Neil lost some votes on the floor of the House that he'd rather have won; but that doesn't mean that Reagan's presidency when he faced Tip was like his presidency would have been if he'd been facing Newt Gingrich. If the ’80s were a good time for American governance and policy, then they count in favor of divided government. One of the hallmark legislative accomplishments of the era, the 1986 tax reform, was a bipartisan enterprise, because it had to be. It was Reagan’s as well as Rostenkowski's, Bradley's as well as Kemp's. It may well be that Reagan was made a better President by his need to reach across the aisle throughout his terms.
The last six years of Clinton’s presidency, 1995 to 2001, is the other era of divided government that gets held up as exemplary. Judis dismisses it as catastrophic on the basis of the Clinton impeachment. But that misses the wonderful weirdness of the late ’90s. The chaos of impeachment coexisted alongside bipartisan legislative accomplishments (most prominently, welfare reform, but also the only serious agricultural policy reform in a generation--unfortunately undone since--and the acceptance of China into the WTO, for example), and the semi-inadvertent budget surpluses that only lasted as long as they did because of divided government. Congress wouldn't agree to large spending hikes, while Clinton wouldn't agree to large tax cuts. And thank goodness. If the current financial crisis does not lead to a fiscal crisis, it will largely be because the U.S.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is a whole lot lower than it might have been, thanks to those years of near-balance and surplus. Again, I think a good president was made better through divided government.
What about the other impeachments--Johnson and Nixon--that Judis lists as “disastrous moments” brought on by divided government? Well, hedging against bad presidents is part of what we want out of divided government. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon should have been impeached. Johnson was a Confederate sympathizer, and even such limited good as came out of Reconstruction came in spite of him, and thanks to the Radical Republicans who impeached him. As for Nixon, are we really to think that Judis believes the republic would be better off if Republicans had controlled both houses of Congress from 1972 to ’76, and so Congressional investigations into Nixon's acts would have lacked the vigor they had? Yes, important Republicans supported impeachment and resignation by the end; but I'm not at all sure that the investigating committees would have acted the same way at the beginning.
And now we have eight more years to add to the evaluation. In the first six years of Bush's presidency, he and Congressional Republicans brought out (or let out) the worst in each other. Spending and the deficit exploded as neither side of Pennsylvania Avenue had it in them to say, "No" to the other. Congress made no use of its investigative and oversight capacities; Bush made no use of his veto pen. Bad and badly-thought-out legislation went through quickly; and the corruption of the K Street Project and the DeLay years found no external check. The last two years have hardly been a highlight of good American government--but they've probably been less bad than the counterfactual two years would have been. I thought in 2006 and still think now that Bush's bad presidency should be checked with opposite-party control.
What about the next couple of years? The obvious prediction is that Obama will have at least two years of one-party government. That may be, temporarily, for the best--the Bush-era Republican Party, like the Nixon-era Republican Party, needs some time in the wilderness to unlearn some very bad habits. The fall of Ted Stevens is something to celebrate even if it inches Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; but I consider the latter a bug, not a feature. And in the unlikely event that a healthier, reformed Republican Party is ready by 2010 and able to grab back control of the House, so much the better for American politics--and maybe so much the better for Obama's presidency. And in the meantime, I'm certainly rooting for smart and decent Hill Republicans (admittedly a minority) to hold onto their seats to lead the rebuilding toward another era of soundly divided government.
Jacob T. Levy is the Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory at McGill University.
By Jacob T. Levy
17 comments
Levy destroys Judis' lame argument. The fact is, Americans prefer divided government because it is both theoretically and practically superior as demonstrated by any reasonably objective look at the historical evidence. No one can name a single important US policy, foreign or domestic, since at least the New Deal and perhaps since the Civil War that hasn't succeeded due to strong bi-partisan support. Such support is a lot more likely with divided government.
- Robert Powell
October 30, 2008 at 4:32am
This is a nice argument for the TNR office, but we don't have two parties anymore. We have one party and a Stage 4 cancer. Nothing will change that until the cancer is killed. I look forward to that, I'd like to see a principled opposition filled with decent, intelligent, mature adults. But for now - the modern Republican party: corrupt, stupid, wasteful, entitled, destructive - must be destroyed in its present incarnation for the good of the world.
- WandreyCer
October 30, 2008 at 5:01am
How about "NO" party rule? A non-partisan country? Where we actually had to pay attention to the issues and couldn't vote with a party on anything. That and getting rid of the electoral college would be the two best things you could do for the US political system. Either one of them alone would be great too.
- Travis
October 30, 2008 at 9:55am
This argument would be more persuasive if a single Republican had made it when the GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House (and yes, they really did control the Legislative and Executive branches). Now it comes across as merely hypocritical and self-serving. Yes, we do need an opposition party, but we need one that isn't batshit crazy. We need an opposition party that understands that ours is a secular, not a Christian, nation. We need an opposition party that has a clue as to how a constitutional government is supposed to work. We need a political opposition that is willing to put the nation's interest ahead of purely partisan considerations. At present,the Republican Party is utterly unfit to serve in such a role.
- Anders Kuyper
October 30, 2008 at 10:00am
To repeat my comment to Judis' post on divided government, in this magazine during the Nixon/Ford administrations Richard Stout (the author of the TRB column) made it his mission to promote the parliamentary form of government because divided government during that era was incapable of addressing the major concerns of the day.
- raylward
October 30, 2008 at 11:14am
I too find Levy's argument much more convincing, although right now I'd rather see the Republican party bludgeoned to death than controlling any part of the government. I'm curious, however, how our country's experience compares to those nations which have had true multi-party rule, and which are often forced to form coalition governments. (This seems to be particularly common in parliamentary systems, which may be better suited towards that kind of arrangement.) Would America be better off if we could choose from three or four credible parties instead of just two? If none of them could maintain a majority on its own, would the competition for votes and the necessity of compromise help avoid some of the disasters we've experienced this decade?
- Nat
October 30, 2008 at 11:17am
I'd say that there's nothing inherently better or worse about divided or undivided government - it all depends on the circumstances and the agendas of the specific parties. If you have beliefs similar to mine, you're glad the radical ambitions of Newt Gingrich's congress were checked by a Democratic president, and Reagan by a Democratic congress. You're also glad that Roosevelt - and Lincoln - were NOT hampered by divided government. Personally, I like Obama's goals and I feel like its a good time for some decisive action. Therefore . . . bring on the single party rule!
- newdex
October 30, 2008 at 11:35am
The trouble, dear Wandrey and Anders, is that you sound just like the hysterical GOPers I hear going on about socialist, communist Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Sorta like all those liberals who were moving to Canada if W won. Not so much. The GOP has its problems, no doubt. But neither party has a monopoly on wisdom or stupidity. We get the Duke and Uncle Ted, you get Jefferson and Kwame, and until the GOP began winning there, the entire state of Louisiana. Anders, while tis true that we are not a Christianist nation by our laws (and good for that), to say that the US is a secular country betrays a complete lack of knowledge of Americans, if not America. I'm all for divided governemnt - gives both sides someone to blame. But when interest rates get to 20% and inflation to 18%, give me a call. Yeah, Carter had one-party gov't, too. For all the good that did.
- butchie b
October 30, 2008 at 11:46am
In case if you haven't noticed, the last two years have had divided government and the United States has economically gone into the toilet. Bush also passed his tax cuts in 2001, arguably his signature enactment, when the Senate was split 50 to 50. This whole argument is specious besides. It is predicated on the notion that splitting the difference will result in best outcomes, but we couldn't split the difference in Iraq, or on a host of issues, and even splitting the difference on some issues just leads to more corruption, witness both parties actions that lead us into this credit crisis and now they have spent months pointing fingers at each other, if one party controlled the government then they will have responsibility for its outcome. Clintons signature event was his passing of his first bill in 1993 under a Democratic Congress, this signalled the market we were serious about deficit reduction and led to the boom of the 90's. Sorry Jacob, case closed, you are wrong.
- blackton
October 30, 2008 at 1:34pm
I have to differ with Mr. Levy about his characterization of Andrew Johnson as a "Confederate sympathizer." While Johnson was from Eastern Tennessee he was no sympathizer nor were many others from his section of that state. He was impeached because of his perhaps impolitic adherence to Lincoln's more accommodating policy of reconstruction, which alienated the radical wing of the Republican party and which led to abandonment of any attempt to breach the rift in the country. The tragedy of Lincoln's assassination was as much a tragedy of losing his healing vision.
- Dwight Homer
October 30, 2008 at 4:01pm
Give TNR credit for exposing the fallaciousness in the arguments of one of their own senior editors. Divided government works because the only "safe" laws are those that garner bipartisan support.
- Ken M
October 30, 2008 at 4:05pm
You know, this argument could go back and forth for all eternity. I'm not sure if "divided" government is generally better or not - but what I've come to realize over the past few years is that removing the Republicans from power is the best thing that can happen to this country. Even if they're replaced by Democrats.
- City of Evil
October 30, 2008 at 4:30pm
Welfare reform is mistakenly credited by Jacob to a divided govt. period; in fact, it was passed by a Demoratic congress and signed by Clinton in the summer of 1994, before the GOP took control of congress. It was a case of a united Democratic govt. acting to do what had never been done before -- to repeal a section of the 1935 Social Security Act. Whether this achievement was good or bad can be debated, but I think it's plain that lots of folks today who are in dire financial circumstances are worse off than they would have been if this 'refrom' had never been enacted.
- Mark
October 30, 2008 at 6:16pm
Yes, Mr. Kuyper, and where are we to the find the mythological opposition party that you fantasize about (not to mention a majority power with similar traits)...?
- Rob
October 30, 2008 at 8:15pm
Actually the question is not divided government vs. unified government. When the government is controlled by party hacks then it makes no difference which party they represent, they make a mess. Congress is supposed to act as a check on the president since they have different responsibilities. When congress doesn't, it abrogates its responsibility regardless of which respective parties control the branches. Simialarly when congress abuses its proragatives in attacking the president it abuses its proragatives. Ideally the government would be controlled by principled people who are interested in coming to agreement to solve the nations problems: How often have we had this government. More directly to the issue: To elect a man totally unqualified to be president to oppose a congress of the other party would be folly as everything would devolve into partisan bickering and nothing would be accomplished. So the issue of government divided between the parties in 2008 would not be beneficial to the country as the Republicans currently have no interest in governing, only ruling. Besides the supreme court is safely in Republican hands.
- T Pinter
October 30, 2008 at 9:22pm
Stage 4 cancer? Batshit crazy? Who sounds wild here? You think Nancy Pelosi won't do to the Democrats what DeLay did to the Republicans? You think Jefferson and Hastings have a better smell than Cunningham? You think Byrd's public record is significantly different than Stevens'? You think Franken and Shaheen offer more competence than Coleman and Sununu? Do you think Bill Clinton got a big lift from the Democratic congress he was elected with? How about Jimmy Carter? Do you think Rangel, Conyers, Dingel, Markey --one could go on and on--care about Obama's agenda? Guess again; they care about their agendas. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for? The Clinton achievements you love to crow about came in his last six years, not his first two.
-
October 30, 2008 at 11:52pm
I am not going to defend Johnson's administration since he appears to have been a not so good president. Still I believe that he was vindicated on the question of impeachment. He had violated the Tenure in Office Act which the Supreme court eventually ruled was unconstitutional.
- Craig McGillivary
November 1, 2008 at 12:35am