THE PLANK OCTOBER 27, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I am a great fan of the Financial Times, and I was interested
to see that they endorsed
Barack Obama for president. But they
couldn’t do so without perpetuating one of the great fallacies of American
politics--a fallacy that is currently echoed by the McCain campaign and the Republican party. Describing their reluctance to endorse Obama, they write, "Since the election will strengthen Democratic
control of Congress, a case can be made for returning a Republican to the White
House: divided government has a better record in the United States than government
united under either party.”
Let’s first look at those past administrations that enjoyed
singular success. Most lists would
include George Washington’s two terms, Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, Theodore
Roosevelt’s (just about) two terms, and Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms. A longer list not based on consensus might
include Thomas Jefferson’s first term, Andrew Jackson’s two terms, Woodrow
Wilson’s first term, Harry Truman’s two terms, and Ronald Reagan’s two terms.
Of the consensus choices, all enjoyed a united government (in
George Washington’s days, there were not really parties). Of the
more controversial choices, Truman suffered through divided government for only
two of seven plus years. Reagan is 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 also add the last two years of Wilson’s second term when divided government (and Wilson’s illness) set America on the track of
irresponsibility in foreign and domestic policy. So if you look at America’s moments of glory and
ignominy, the conclusion is inescapable: divided government is a curse, not a
blessing, and should be avoided, if at all possible.
Of course, this account is too simple. If you want to probe the question more
deeply, I would recommended The Politics Presidents Make by Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek, a Yale political scientist, distinguishes two kinds of circumstances that have led to crippled government. In the first, a president from an opposing party, but who nevertheless represents the wave of
the political future, confronts a congress wedded to the past and determined to
frustrate him. You could put Nixon (who was the harbinger of an emerging Republican
majority) and Clinton (who was the harbinger of an emerging Democratic majority)
in this group. Both these presidencies degenerated into chaos in their second terms.
Then, there are presidents who, in Skowronek’s words, are “affiliated
with a set of established commitments that have in the course of events been
called into question as failed or irrelevant responses to the problems of the
day.” Skowroneck numbers among these James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. These
presidents don’t necessarily have to contend with a Congressional opposition in power, but
like Hoover and
Carter in their last two years, with a nascent and growing opposition in Congress
that constitutes a functional majority in opposition to what they want to do. These presidencies have also proved disastrous.
A John McCain presidency would clearly fall in the latter
group, and McCain, unlike Hoover
and Carter, would have to face clear and unequivocal majorities in Congress
united against him. Rather than promising
success, that kind of divided government would promise chaos and failure. But
don’t tell that to the proponents of divided government.
--John B. Judis
20 comments
Obviously it's a good thing to have a divided government when you've got a pseudo dictator like Georgie in power, but considering our current situation, that's the last thing we need. Having a single party rule it all completely isn't that good, but we're in a situation that needs quick action. If that action is wrong, how much worse can we be? We have limited civil liberties today, our economy is in shambles, we're trying (not very well) to fight two wars, and we the world thinks we're total jerks. I can't believe it can get worse than this - and that includes the bread lines caused by Bush's Republican failed economic policies.
- WaltB
October 27, 2008 at 4:03pm
I would add that the decline of Bush and the Republicans has driven a lot of moderate-to-conservative types towards Obama and the Democrats. As a result, the next Congress will be far from ideologically monolithic. That should provide more than enough of a moderating effect.
- WayneJM
October 27, 2008 at 4:08pm
I would include the first Bush years as one of "the more disastrous moments in the history of American administrations"...
Functionally crippled administrations are not the only ones to fear. Administrations that are able to very effectively push through radical agendas are equally fearsome.
Hoover's administration was not a disaster because it faced "a functional majority in opposition", it was a disaster because it didn't face *enough* opposition, didn't encounter a force strong enough to divert it from its catastrophical course. Same as with the early years of Bush Jr, and I'd actually include the first Reagan years as an example of this too.
- jobeek2
October 27, 2008 at 4:44pm
I'm glad somebody finally took on this mythology about divided government, although I would argue that Nixon and Clinton had far more success domestically than you give them credit for. Their scandals were largely separate issues from their policy proposals. Granted, the impeachment probably doesn't happen without a Republican majority in Congress, but that's hardly a strong case against divided government in principle.
Also, you raise a good point that it's more about whether the President has support in Congress, not necessarily whether he has members of his party in charge.
- AlanSP
October 27, 2008 at 4:47pm
If Senate Republicans continue to filibuster the sunrise at dawn and the sunset at dusk, Obama will face gridlock just as surely as McCain. Democrats will achieve a 55-seat majority -- but so what? Is it easier to find six Republicans who will ALLOW a vote on Obama's health care plan, or six Democrats who will ACTUALLY vote for McCain's plan to utterly deregulate health insurance? It's a toss-up. So long as the Reid Doctrine of preemptive surrender continues to dominate Democratic strategy in the Senate, we'll continue to enjoy the boons of a divided, dysfunctional government.
- bdgreen
October 27, 2008 at 5:28pm
I'd build on Alan's comment: divided government under Clinton was largely responsible for the policy successes of his time in office. Yes, it took unified Democratic government to pass the budget in 1993, and nearly all that was good in the Clinton years flowed from that budget. But without divided government thereafter, the federal budget almost certainly would not have been balanced, the prosperity of the decade would thereby have been lessened along with our ability to afford the eight Bush years without complete fiscal ruin, and welfare reform really did require a Republican majority in Congress.
Also, much of the worst failure of the current Bush administration stems from the fact that he had a working majority in Congress and failed to use it. The problem with Guantanamo and domestic wiretapping and so forth was never that the president was doing the things; it was that he was doing them on his own in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. Had he just gone to Congress and said, "I need these powers; please pass the appropriate legislation," we could have avoided many of the worst aspects of the Bush years. Bush behaved as though we had divided government even when his party controlled all three elected branches.
So the corollary might be that in good times, divided government can be a good thing. It's in a time of crisis that divided government, whether real or "virtual" on account of the president being stupid, can be and usually is catastrophic.
- rhubarbs
October 27, 2008 at 5:44pm
Chaos you say. I thought Clinton's second term was very successful. He balanced the budget, and used a surplus to pay down the debt for future needs, he stopped genocide in Yugoslavia. He came damn close to getting peace in the middle east. He avoided a war with Iraq in '98. He also passed PNTR which is now unpopular, but I bet we keep it. He enacted a bunch of environmental policies through administrative actions. The only sad thing is that Bush undid much of his success. He allowed the situation in the middle east to deteriorate. He pulled out of Kyoto. He started a war with Iraq which Clinton had avoided. He payed less attention to terrorism that Clinton had and thus both failed to prevent 9/11 and then overreacted to it. He passed a huge tax cut which helped undo the surplus. He missed a chance to reform entitlements by cutting taxes and trying to privatize Social Security. I could go on, but the point is Bush had a Republican Congress, divided government would have been better.
- CraigMcGil
October 27, 2008 at 7:22pm
The FT people had read George Will's column on the subject, who demonstrated the difference between one-party rule and divided rule. One party rule was much more prone to excess spending, and when it was divided, the government was more frugal.
- perseus353
October 28, 2008 at 5:49am
Long-time readers of this magazine will recall that this magazine, at least the author of the TRB column, heavily promoted the idea of the parliamentary form of government during the 1970s under the divided government of Nixon and then Ford and a Democratic Congress because of tthe inability of the divided government to address the major issues of the day. And the issues then pale in comparison to the issues the country and world face today.
- raylward
October 28, 2008 at 7:30am
All I know is that I can't go to dinner without having a bitter conversation about the election and, as currently indicated at the McCain/Palin rallies, we're going to have a bitter electorate either way. If the Democrats win (which is a good thing) and act like the Republicans did after 1994, I am going to be really pissed.
- Nusholtz
October 28, 2008 at 8:07am
As always, divided government doesn't work if it is to the detriment of your policy agenda; divided government is a wonderful thing if it hinders a policy agenda you are in opposition to. Same goes for "united" government - if they're your guys, it's great. Various attempts are generally made to doll these notions up as a matter of principle, but the truth is so obvious that these efforts are usually a waste.
- selish70
October 28, 2008 at 8:30am
Rhubarbs,
Your examples are wrong. The Clinton Administration decided on its own to balance the budget - Congress had little to do with it. You are apparently not aware that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate when the 1993 budget was passed?
See: en.wikipedia.org/.../103rd_United_States_Congress.
The government shutdown in 1995 actually shows why the divided government is bad. Republicans took over the House and immediately shutdown the whole government in an ideological standoff.
Many posters have given examples such as George W. Bush of how a unified government can do a lot of damage. This is why it matters who we elect President. Do not elect a group of crazy ideologues and everything will be ok. With a unified government, the government actually works. With a divided government, it does not. What those in power do with a unified government makes all the difference.
In general, conservatives tend to like divided government because it ensures gridlock. This supports the status quo. That is also why businesses tend to like it - if everything is setup in your favor, then you do not want any changes.
- rhorath
October 28, 2008 at 9:35am
Rhubarbs,
About the failures of the Bush administration:
1) They may have had a working majority in Congress, but not for wiretapping and torturing. These things were specifically not brought in front of Congress because the initial inquiries said it would be a non-starter.
2) Even if they had the votes, these were Constitutional and Treaty violations, so no statutory legislation could provide legal cover.
- rhorath
October 28, 2008 at 9:42am
Rhubarbs,
Sorry, I misread your post - you did acknowledge a unified Democratic government passed the 1993 budget. The rest of my post still stands, however - Congress had little to do with balancing the budget. This decision was made by the Clinton administration. The dispute and the government shutdown was over how to balance it (and mainly an intentional fight Gingrich wanted to pick to try to make Clinton look bad).
Also, I must say that welfare reform has been an unmitigated disaster. Clinton himself said it was his greatest regret when he left office. All those single moms forced to work two and three jobs while their kids were raised by who? Those kids are hitting their adult years right about now...wouldn't you know, the crime rate has suddenly begun increasing after decades of decline...
- rhorath
October 28, 2008 at 10:00am
John -
You're going to want to make sure this article gets "lost" in a week or so - It reads well now, but this is is the sort of piece that comes back to bite a pundit in the ass in eight or twelve years.
Sorry, but selish is correct: what matters is not *that* presidential initiatives get passed, but *what* initiatives get passed. If a president is unable to push an agenda I dislike (e.g. Obama's ethanol subsidies, or McCain's tax cuts) I view that as no bad thing. If part of Congress blocks an agenda I like, obviously, I rail against their "obstructionism". Personally, I find that neither party really mirrors my views, so on balance I actually prefer divided rule. It keeps both of y'all from getting too cocky.
- dhauck
October 28, 2008 at 12:45pm
Why not go right to a dictatorship. Borrow the red star from Ayers shirt and take up with Obama in place of Mao or Stalin. We could have unified government and redistribution of wealth all at once.It would be a quick a fix as you could get.
- davidlheber
October 28, 2008 at 1:39pm
helber, was government under the GOP a dictatorship? I guess you weren't apocalyptic over the warrentless wiretaps, torture and such. And I guess the increased debt, expansion of entitlements (Medicare prescription plan), quasi nationalization of the banking system (next up: life insurance companies) the placing off-limits of hundreds of square miles of ocean to create a national monument (gosh, the number of U.S. and Japanese fishing fleets that were put out of business for fish kissers) doesn't bother you.
- tec619
October 28, 2008 at 3:07pm
Trouble is, tec, most of your list had bi-partisan support. The Dems criticism of Part D Medicare is not that it was passed, but that we're not spending enough on it. Obama vote against the new FISA?
Dictatorship? Not bloody likely. Besides, since January, 2007, we've HAD divided gov't. For all the good it has done us.
- butchie b
October 28, 2008 at 4:17pm
butchie:
Helber is the hyperbolic one. I was merely pointing out how full of shit he is and questioned why he didn't feel oppressed under the conservative socialist government of the Dubya.
- tec619
October 28, 2008 at 5:42pm
It's a little tense here with the election so close, and there've been a few in-house debates
- Anonymous
November 1, 2008 at 1:42pm