For many Americans, the idea of divided government -- one branch led by one party, one branch led by another -- has a certain appeal. The division can serve as a kind of check against partisan excesses, at least in theory, while forcing policymakers to strike compromises.
But that was before the 112th Congress changed public attitudes.
Gallup ran this report yesterday noting the spike in the number of Americans how believe it's better to have the same party control both the White House and Congress. It's reached a record high, and it's the first time in a decade that this is a plurality view.
There's no great mystery here. Congressional Republicans, after creating a debt-ceiling crisis, multiple government-showdown crises, and making even routine governing nearly impossible, have offered a brilliant civics lesson on the dangers of divided government.
For what it's worth, the idealized notion of divided institutions finding common ground to advance public interests isn't ridiculous on its face, but it's dependent on having two mainstream political parties, sincere in their commitment to governing. When one abandons institutional norms and becomes radicalized, divided government doesn't lead to more compromise, it leads to less.
And as the Mann-Orstein thesis tells us, "When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.... The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
Gallup's report on the results also raised an interesting point to keep an eye on: "As the 2012 election approaches, these findings suggest that Americans may be somewhat less open to ballot splitting than in prior years."
Leave a Comment:
The Gerrymander is (HAS?) destroying America.
This is why in every House race, every TV ad, every web video for Dem candidates ought to have a streamer saying: "A vote for any GOP candidate is a vote for obstruction." And it should list what unemployment rate would be if the GOP hadn't obstructed on employment in the public sector and if it hadn't obstructed the AJA.
Otherwise, Republicans get off with the most obnoxious act against it's own people in history just to make a President look bad. It can only work if the public doesn't know about it.
Polarization is a win-win for lobbyists. If the GOP wins, they have an open door to writing legislation. If the Dems win by locking up both houses of Congress, the White House and the judiciary for a generation, they also win. It's because Lobbyists are as confident as Kenneth Lay in their ability to game the government. Lay even openly mocked public officials, quipping: "it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do". Do we honestly think the Dems are incorruptible? You don't have to look any further than the Clinton presidency to relieve yourself of that delusion. Consider how effective Wall Street was at getting Glass Stiegel repealed. The most effective tool for lobbyists is a party with a monopoly on power- where there is no reward for whistle blowing or vigorous discussion of the real issues challenging the country.
We need to face the fact that third parties are effectively banned in the US, and the duopoly on power enjoyed by the two parties is not good for democracy. The plutocrats are quite content to use political polarization to get one party into a monopoly position on power.
Real electoral reform needs to eliminate the defacto ban on third party candidates: that being, every voter understands that third party candidates are spoilers. Preferential voting is the reform I advocate. It means that voters rank their preferences, a vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for Bush because in the voter indicates their second preference is Gore. In a common preferential vote scheme, the candidate with the lowest number of votes (Nader or Perot) is eliminated, and the votes reallocated based on ballot prefernce indicated.
Gore wins though Nader is on the Ballot. And there is a more open debate because people are not cowed into supporting the centrist candidate. There is a wider examination of the issues. Huntsman and Ron Paul could be in the race today, and Huntsman could actually be out ahead of Obama in the Polls.
Obama would be forced to compete and for example answer for his administration's failed policies in Afghanistan. Maybe we could have at least one news cycle where Obama was on the defensive for his lackluster performance on tackling global warming. There is no power among the Greens or the Libertarians. Don't get me wrong- I am no fan of populism. Third parties in Congress need to be opened up as well- it seems to me if Greens are 15% of the electorate, it is fair that 15% of the House seats are occupied by national Green candidates. Same thing for the right- The Libertarians get their 10%. These guys caucus where they want and Pelosi's and Boehners have many more avenues to get legislation passed. I'm not saying it wouldn't be tricky- if implemented naively, paralysis of government created by multiple parties (French Fourth republic)- could be the unintended outcome. It is hard to see how the outcome would be worse than the present situation.
In general opening the system to third parties is essential because muzzling significant segments of an ever more diverse electorate is not healthy for democracy.
I agree with the premise that we need third parties in government. We also need changes in the Senate regarding procedure. But I don't see the Senate being accessible to third parties since two parties dominate the system. The Constitution should be amended to allow for direct election of the president and that will force candidates to campaign in all states. However, that might bring a flood of even more money into the system so our election laws need to be changed. I am not certain how they could be changed to meet the needs of a large country, but I am open to suggestions.
Abolition of the electoral college is a long standing reform that cuts in a different way. Our democratic system can be summed up as "Only swing state voters get to choose the President". This promotes cynical detachment, and the feeling among voters that they have no political agency if they do not live in a swing state. Low voter turnout and ambivalence results. A GOP voter should not feel their vote doesn't matter if they live in deep blue Hawaii, and a Dem voter should not feel disenfranchised if they live in Oklahoma.
The Bayh-Celler Amendment in 1968 came closest to being passed but died in the Senate failing to achieve 60 votes to end cloture.
Think what the country would have been like had their been two simple reforms: preferential voting and election of the President by popular vote. Nixon won with less than a 1% of a popular vote edge over Humphrey. But with preferential voting, more than half of the Wallace Democrats votes (14% of the popular vote) would easily have gone to Humphrey making it a landslide for Humphrey.
Because of his VP position, he was regarded as a stand-in for Johnson, but Humphrey was an early opponent of the war in Vietnam and the bombing of the North. In my view we would have been rapidly disengaged from that ill considered war.
So really, this discussion is extremely important. It should not be dismissed as the perennial quixotic issue of little importance that only comes up every four years and then is forgotten.
Now Mike as for all of these reforms, they all are amendments, and that is a tough tough road. It is hard to paint a believable scenario for how there would be sustained to pressure to drive the most easily attainable of any of these electoral reforms.
That is why I think all attention should be focused on an amendment that unlocks the doors to reform. An amendment to the constitution allowing national referendums to have equal weight of an act of congress. All actions of Congress, including amendments to the constitution. The dangers of populism is checked by the state ratification process.
In my view, this provides a realistic scenario for getting these reforms in over the next 3 or 4 decades.
Otherwise, it's hard to see how even the lowest hanging fruit- popular vote for president- becomes a ratified amendment in that time frame.
I am opposed to binding national referendums. They are how California got into the fiscal bind because they cannot get tax hikes and the gay marriage issue is being put to a vote. We would not put civil rights up for a vote and that is how a referendum would be abused.
It is highly unlikely that direct election could be accomplished because of the current makeup of the Congress. But it is possible to appeal to many states, red and blue, that feel they are being neglected by the candidates. The last few elections have been decided by swing states and whole segments of the country have been ignored. I think it is possible to move some state legislatures to pass a resolution urging Congress to pass the amendment. That would be the motivation for politicians to vote for the bill.
The only real way to avoid divided government is to adopt a parliamentary system. And to any would-be clever-dick who would try to use Weimar Germany as a means of arguing against a parliamentary system, I should like to point out that Germany no longer has that problem.
Grid lock is the best for the markets and our pocket-books. We all saw how ineffective BO's first two years were. Bring on divided goverment!!! Our 401-K's will thank us for this.
It's too late now, plus we need to know who our enemies are, you know the ones that haven't lifted a finger to help all of the American people, the ones that have made a career out of ripping off the American people, the ones that have taken trillions of dollars from the Middle Class and the poor taxpayers' money and channeled it to their rich Corporate Buddies. Corporations are the only ones with their hands out, they have even managed to manipulate our legislative system to make laws that the American people never agreed to or were even aware of, behind closed doors.
Has anyone looked at SLC, Ut. bribery scandal ? It was the largest in Olympic history!
Given your earlier this morning piece about where the GOP will place the blame for Romney's defeat, we can probably expect an equal amount or more gridlock in the next Congress, not less.
Yes , we do not hear your pals running on JOBS JOBS JOBS this time around , because even their own voters will not buy that BS at this point , they are running on the straight up OBSTRUCTION ticket , and as mr benen points out , a lot of people will not vote for that this time
.
Continuing gridlock will be the death of the GOP.
Can't vote for a Republican because a vote for a Republican is a validation of Obstructionism, and obstructionism is as a petulant child stopping everything because they didn't get what they wanted.
So vote against the Republican if only to show the Children this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
Rob - Apparently the rest of the country did not agree with you when the Dems got shellacked in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Has anyone seen news story when Olympics were in Utah, largest bribery scandal in Olympic history.
Why don't we see the people in Utah backing Mitt's Olympics?
hmmmm
.
Because the people of Massachusetts wouldn't vote for Romney again?
That a ham sandwich would have trounced Romney?
I know that doesn't answer the question, it is something to ponder.
.
Ever notice that there is a 23-28% of people who are always on the other side of any issue? These are the Bush/Cheney/GOP At All Cost Republicans. You can always count on them voting as a bloc to the detriment of the US.
ummm... its more 47%
"For what it's worth, the idealized notion of divided institutions finding common ground to advance public interests isn't ridiculous on its face, but it's dependent on having two mainstream political parties, sincere in their commitment to governing. When one abandons institutional norms and becomes radicalized, divided government doesn't lead to more compromise, it leads to less."
Exactly. If I were asked that question, I wouldn't know how to answer, because in theory I'd favor divided government. In practice, however, it hasn't worked out for the last six years or so (probably longer, but that's when it's been really bad) because of the insincerity of one party. The same is true of the filibuster- I think it's a good idea, provided it's used sparingly. In theory, it can prevent a majority from shoving through popular but dangerous legislation in a time of heated passions by forcing a minority viewpoint to be heard. In practice, though, it's lately been used to shut down debate before it starts, so rather than helping the process it hinders it. The last few years have really showed how much our government worked not on absolute checks but on social norms and understanding. When one party stops caring about acting responsibly and does whatever it can to win, the lack of explicit limits becomes a problem, and we're forced to change the rules to fix them. It's a shame, because our institutions have worked well in the past, but now I don't see any choice but to rewrite the rules to rein them in, and to work for one-party government in order to actually get things done.
And this is exactly what the Tea Baggers have done, because in their tiny little minds, they believe that ANYTHING proposed by a Democrat is 'dangerous legislation.'
"don't see any choice but to rewrite the rules to rein them in, and to work for one-party government in order to actually get things done."
No can do....
Then the only thing required to hijack the government is one really devious or smart individual or corporation. Even though grid lock on the level and scale that the country has experienced over the past 3 years is questionably criminal in my mind, it is still better than domination.
Early U.S. history shows that, whenever one party was eliminated, the remaining party split into factions that eventually spawned a new party, and equilibrium was restored. Right now, we have a wide spectrum of reasonable people in the Democratic Party, and a slew of unhinged maniacs in the GOP. I don't think we get a new party in this day and age, but a decade or so wandering in the wilderness could force the GOP to moderate its stances (I know it hasn't worked yet, but they've still seen sporadic success with their intransigence). It would probably also require doing something about the influence of big money in politics, so the people who give the loudest speeches and make the most outrageous promises don't easily win gerrymandered districts. It's not going to be easy, no doubt- the problem is complicated, but the current GOP shows no sign of being part of the solution.
I worry that gridlock will become a permanent feature of our government.
Certainly the Republicans will continue to create gridlock if they are not in control of the government. The Republican mindset seems to still be that they are losing elections because they did not do enough of the things that lost them the last election.
There is also the danger that what the Republicans are doing will push Democrats into retaliation mode. It would be human nature, and given the nature of the Republican agenda, it might be the only thing Democrats felt they could do. But the only thing worse than obstructionist Republicans would be if the only agenda of both parties was to block everything the other party tries to do.
The current situation illustrates that thanks to the idiotic rules in the Senate that a minority party can create a lot of mischief if they are dead set on obstruction.
It also worries me that an obstructionist party is in control of a politicized Supreme Court. It came very near to not mattering that a majority government passed Affordable Health Care because the other party's majority on the Court has the ability to toss out almost any law that it does not like by twisting the Constitution to suit their views. Consider that the out of power party can file all the lawsuits it wishes and the Court gets to decide what suits they will rule on.
Sulray - we have always had grid-lock. It has only been very short periods when one party has controlled all three branches. The American electorate are very wise and realize that if one party has all three branches without any checks and balances, then the government swings too hard to one direction. The beauty of having divided government is that extreme policy changes can not be pushed through. Again as I have said above, the stock market loves grid-lock and in the end is better for all us.
It's not just "divided government" - this really is war. One of my critiques has been that President Obama has continually bent over backwards to give the GOTP what they want, and still they refuse to "compromise", their "oath" to Grover is stronger than the "Oath of Office" to serve America and working Americans and frankly that's treason!
Not to mention that the GOTP isn't "leading" but regressing to failed policy that has already tanked the economy! These people need to be voted out of office, for several cycles - at least until they learn how to "play well with others".
And democrats who do not realize that a war was declared upon them some 20 years ago need to WTFU / WAKE UP !!!!!
It is only obstuctionism when it obstructs Your agenda. If the obstuctionism is fighting against those principles that you abhor, then it is wonderful. Obviously, the fight that the Gop is fighting is approved by about half of the population, so how is that obstructionism. Without it, we have no input to an administration who marches on with a socialist, antibusiness, tax and spend, and spend, and spend agenda. Against an administration who expands American debt. The Chinese are building a strong military. If needed, how will we defend against any aggression by them. I don't think they will lend us money to support a military under those terms. Our nations defense is in great jeopardy under this administration from many different angles. Sadly, we have been attacked a lot more under this administration than under Bush. He at least attended daily briefings from the intelligence agencies and kept us safe. The tide is turning against us and the terrorists are emboldened. Obama doesn't have time for any such nonsense as intelligence briefings. He has to be on the View.
jes33,
You say "tax and spend" but 1) Taxes have gone down under Obama. 2) Spending growth has been lower under Obama than any other President since Eisenhower. You call Obama a socialist, apparently without understanding what socialism is. Public roads, emergency services such as fire and police protection, and a national military are all forms of socialism. Obama didn't start those. You say anti-business, when Obama has lowered taxes many times for small businesses. If you want to argue "oh he increased regulations that hurt businesses," the Obama administration has put fewer new regulations into place than Bush II did over his first term.
You claim we've been attacked more under Obama than under Bush. Of course you provide no data to back up that claim. And even if it were true, we've been able to prevent those attacks from becoming the 9/11 event Bush allowed to happen through his own ignorance. Bush attended briefings because he didn't want to have to read anything. I would bet that Obama can tell you more about our defense off the top of his head than Bush compiled in writing over his 8 years.
When the GOP talks about "jobs jobs jobs" but then refuses to even debate Obama's proposed jobs act, and instead they vote 30+ times to repeal the ACA, knowing that such bills will never see the light of day in the Senate, much less be signed by Obama, how is that NOT obstructionism? I guess the House GOP abhors the principle of creating jobs and improving our infrastructure at a time when many Americans need and want jobs. When they meet on Inauguration Day and agree to do everything they can to make Obama a one-term President at all costs, how is that not obstructionism? When filibusters are their standard response to any and all Democratic-introduced bills, no matter how beneficial they would be to us as Americans, how is that not obstructionism? The "wonderful" obstructionism you describe isn't supported by "about half of the population." That's proven by the survey results in this blog. It's more like 23% - in other words, the idiots in the Tea Party.
REALLY ? So 50% of america think women shouldn't have contraception medication available to them? And we need to some how limit womens heathcare over all ? Try again
You are parroting bull@!$%# right wing talking points.
Obama doesn't attend daily meetings because he reads the Presidential Daily Briefings. He doesn't need to have them Cliff Noted to him by his underlings like Bush did. Remember the key PDB that was ignored? Something like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US" which was completely ignored by Bush saying that "you've covered your ass" and thusly dismissing the information.
I would rather have a president who can actually read and comprehend - and ask questions, not one who is dependent upon other's interpretations.
Obama cut taxes. Even Romney said so. But your right wing bubble won't tell you that. Obama cut regulations, again something Fox and Rush and Drudge won't tell you.
But keep watching Fox and reading Drudge and the other BS right wing BS. I'm sure you feel smart in your right-wing bubble.
The only nonsense being spewed is by you and your friends in the bubble.
I have to wonder just how pig headed someone has to be to live so closed up to the actual FACTS of this Presidents admin. I have some issues, everyone should but repeating blatant lies about taxes and spending without doing an ounce of open minded research has either got to be the easiest way to live or the hardest. You, Jess33 are firmly in the "bubble" Good luck with that!
WoW, we must have been typing at same time. Well said MsJoanne!
Bush created a war and no means to pay for it, we still have not paid for it and the cost still continues to rise. If you remove that 3 trillion and counting from the national debt and all the other costs that are apart of this decision, the odds are good that the debt would be around 12 trillion instead of 16 trillion.
Why do you think Bush is staying away from the Repub candidate? Guilt by association is not what Mitt needs or wants, at least not till after the election. If he wins, Bush and Cheney will become permanent features in the White House. The oil and gas industry wants an all out war on the middle east. Obama has cut imported oil by 50% which forces oil companies to buy U S sources. This cuts into profits because they cannot charge excessive import fees and other costs to the consumer. This will also force them to give up subsidies and loop holes.
Great blog post, this is exactly how I feel right now. I have always strongly believed in a two party system. I have always registered as a Democrat (I did a brief stint as an Independent during collage, but everyone experiments in collage, right?) and looked at each candidate individually no matter their party affiliation. Not this year, perhaps not until I am convinced the GOP is ready to work instead of just play petty politics. This year I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket, I want my President to have the support he needs.
Absoluetly. Let the cacophony from the Right's echo chamber rattle themselves to sleep. This country of ours has work to do! Work that does not include enriching the wealthy even further, rattling sabers at any and every hint of trouble in the world, destroying Medicare/Medicaid, making a mockery of women's issues, or letting health care be a privilege for the few instead of making it a right for all.
AbsoluTEly.
It seems like a lot more people are going to vote straight party ballots this year. Just wondering if they keeps stats on this. I could see why the republicans are working so hard to block voting.
.
Two party system, three party system .... No party system? I find it hard to care, much.
Danger arises when any party or administration surrounds themselves with Bobble heads or as Limply Limpy lovingly calls them, Ditto Heads.
Thats the Danger.
The number of parties wouldn't matter if we all got together and worked forward to move forward,
If Politics became what it should be, give and take, compromise, and not what Politics have become, my way or nothing.
Righties will blame Democrats for not compromising, but that's easily disprove by the Reps saying something, Obama saying how that sounds like a good idea, and the Reps immediately say how their own idea is horse poo, socialist communist, or whatever they need say to pander to the base.
Pathetic.
.