Opinion: A Divided Government Will Be Disastrous for the US Economy, Mark Zandi, November 17, 2022, (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/opinions/midterm-elections-us-economy-zandi/index.html) and,
Divided Government is More Productive Than You Think, Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, November 17, 2022, (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/politics/midterm-election-divided-government-what-matters/index.html)
Ironically, the pieces above were published on the same day on CNN.com. As used here the term “divided government” means the House, Senate, and Presidency are not controlled by the same party.
High school civics taught us that our government is deliberately divided, but on different terms. Constitutional divisions were drawn between state and federal, and between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The branches have designated roles, including to check the power of the others. This design enables self-determination by suppressing the authoritarian tendencies of the ruling classes. Ideally, the President’s platform should be nothing other than to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress. Ideally, we should have no concern for Senate races in states other than our own.
Party politics thwart this intent in unwieldy fashion. It’s political Calvinball (Calvinball | The Calvin and Hobbes Wiki | Fandom). When one party controls, it’s a sprint to power! Abdicating their roles to check and balance, the branches join forces to pursue the controlling party’s platform. A 52 to 48 majority is treated as a mandate, even knowing that the 52 are not fully committed. Rules are modified to accelerate their work and diminish the other party’s influence. The minority throws a temper tantrum. A gleeful and partisan press lambasts us with snarky soundbites of their ideological foes either pursuing oppression or opposing progress. Forty-five minutes later, the next election cycle presages a change of control. Then, quick! Repeal what you can and cue the investigations!
What an incredible waste of legislative energy. I’ve often heard the legislative process described as ugly, like sausage-making. I have no problem with ugly. (If you’ve ever seen me, you know why!) But I, and I suspect most, expect good sausage. We’re not getting much. The majority party enacts all the divisive legislation it can muster when government is unified, whether we want it or not. When government is divided, we get less partisan legislation, but not much of it. Hot-button issues are used as weapons against the other party and endlessly deferred for the next majority. Little compromise. Bad sausage.
This is out of balance. According to Pew Research, from 1994 to today, roughly 35% of adults identify as Independent, markedly exceeding those who identify as either Democrat or Republican (6 facts about U.S. political independents | Pew Research Center). On November 9, a friend and I were texting about a professional issue that hadn’t gone well. This was the morning after the mid-term election when sleepless talking heads were still talking about Republican failures. I closed our text with, “Well, it could be worse. You could be a Republican!” He texted back “I don’t know what I am.” Then he listed twelve common sense points that put him exactly where most of us are: ideologically non-aligned with either party. If my community is representative, this includes even people who affiliate with their parties. Most of us are voting our view of the least evil.
Mr. Zandi’s op-ed claims that impending gridlock of a Republican House will cause economic disaster according to his party’s view of economic progress. I am not sympathetic. I would not be sympathetic to the opposition, either. The idea that the various branches should collaborate to achieve authoritarian, partisan objectives is exactly what we don’t want.
Mr. Wolf’s analysis is based on interviews with Professors Frances Lee (Princeton) and James Curry (University of Utah). They argue that “…divided government overperforms and unified government underperforms expectations.” I summarize their points this way. Unified government doesn’t produce as much progress as imagined, and divided government doesn’t mean a lack of progress. Under unified government, partisanship combined with intraparty disagreements inhibits the anticipated bold action. Under division, legislative accomplishments don’t cut in favor or against either party. So even when notable, those accomplishments lack the “rooting interest” (their words) of the politically aware.
Despite fifteen of our last twenty-two Congresses being under divided governance, Mr. Wolf’s interviewees claim that Americans do not prefer it. I do, but again on different terms. I think that a government divided along the intended lines with less powerful parties would be an improvement. The system needs to rebalance against zealots who conscript the parties in their iconoclastic war. I envision a process assuring one party can never control all branches of government. Imagine that recognized parties could nominate two independent candidates, as opposed to a ticket of President and Vice-President. We all vote once for President. The candidate with the most votes is elected President. The candidate with the second most is Vice President and President of the Senate. The third is Vice President and Speaker of the House. I argue that the power of momentary majorities could be diluted, forcing parties to compete at the grass roots with more compromising ideals. Perhaps a credible third party could emerge.
Many congressional rules, the filibuster, the veto, and the electoral college were intended to frustrate autocracy by a slim majority. Those features are being systematically weakened by our wannabe authoritarian parties. That should further inspire us. I am neither a political scientist nor a constitutional scholar. At the risk of overstepping my intellect, which I frequently do, it seems a Constitutional Amendment repealing and rethinking the 12th, 17th, 20th, and 25th could more constructively address the selection, term, and eligibility for federal office. The 12th was ratified in 1803, the 25th in 1967. Maybe it’s time. There are likely better ideas than mine. It would be refreshing to see such ideas shared and developed by the know-how community.
Improving doesn’t mean abandoning. It's hard to argue any existing government on the scale of ours is as effective. It’s an advantage we should press. I enthusiastically support everybody’s right to organize and use the political system to advance worthy causes. That’s what our political parties do. Perhaps they’re too successful. It seems their naturally emerging authoritarian ambitions are overwhelming the system design. We can and should fix it.
“We The People” want to see the stars, but two bright lights are blinding our eyes.
mmmmm, sausage...
Sounds like your main beef (pun intended) is with authoritarianism. I agree. I've read lots of opinions on how it got started and why it is now running rampant. Not sure how to put the demons back into Pandora's box at this point; humans being what they are. How on earth did the founding fathers do what they did???