Sunday, November 16, 2008
Unified States of America
The big winner in last Tuesday’s election was unified government. Between the years 1900 – 1952 unified governed occurred 85% of the time. Since, however, unified government has occurred much less frequently. The trend toward divided government has been an important feature of our contemporary government.
Such trends appear over.
Divided government occurs when the majority party in Congress differs from the party of the President. In recent years this has meant a Democratic majority in charge of the legislative branch and a Republican George Bush as President.
Unified government occurs when the majority party in Congress is the same as the party of the President. Since 1952, we have experienced unified government only about one third of the time. As political scientist-in-chief David Mayhew has written, “Divided we Govern.”
One would expect that divided government produces gridlock and unified government yields legislative productivity. Yet the facts may be counter intuitive. Mayhew and others have argued that significant legislation is no more likely in a unified government. Periods of divided government may encourage greater deliberation and subsequent bipartisan success.
Unified government, however, often finds itself trapped and snared by incestuous bickering. Agenda setting rarely has one master. The White House and Congress often have different constituent groups to please. The push and pull of the legislative process may butt up against Obama and his minions. Obama won the election after all by appealing to his moderate side. Ramming a liberal agenda through Congress may make for a short honeymoon.
The last time we had an extended unified government, all the way back to the 1960s, significant reform legislation was passed. This included advancements in civil rights, education and health care. In G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot’s latest book The Liberal Hour they argue:
“The institutions of national politics and bureaucrats who inhabited them . . . produced social and economic changes that have become the deep and enduring legacy of the 1960s.”
Unified government need not to be feared. Years ago Woodrow Wilson wrote – “It is only once in a generation that a people can be lifted above the material things. That is why conservative government is in the saddle two thirds of the time.”
Has our time arrived?
Barack Obama was not the only winner in the electoral victory. Unified government is back and looking stronger than ever. The recent trend toward divided government was soundly defeated. Only time will tell what the consequences will be of taking that last trend out of town.
(From CBS2School)
VIDEO: Unified Government
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
If one party holds both the Presidency and Congress more infighting occurs. An example of this is during President Bush's first term he never vetoed a single bill because he needed all Republican Congressmen and Senators to support his foreign policy concerning the Iraq War.
I also believe that President-Elect Obama has brought in Rahm Emmanuel more so to keep the DEMOCRATS in check than republicans. Obama does not want the democrats running amock on his watch.
Unified Government means a more effective and prosperous economy, and history proves this fact, which I think is what the Nation needs right now. Whether this system will be effective or will create problems will be seen in the Obama's administration very quickly. Now that the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress it will also be interesting to see if Unified government will allow for political parties to more easily accomplish their policy objectives or discourage the operation of the system of checks and balances wrote in the Constitution. Unified Government and Divided Government both have their pros and cons, only time will tell in the next administration if a Unified Political system will be effective for the Nation.
Unified Government means a more effective and prosperous economy, and history proves this fact, which I think is what the Nation needs right now. Whether this system will be effective or will create problems will be seen in the Obama's administration very quickly. Now that the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress it will also be interesting to see if Unified government will allow for political parties to more easily accomplish their policy objectives or discourage the operation of the system of checks and balances wrote in the Constitution. Unified Government and Divided Government both have their pros and cons, only time will tell in the next administration if a Unified Political system will be effective for the Nation.
One example, one election, based on a popular Democratic candidate and a nation-wide reaction against an unpopular President is hardly enough to declare such recent trends of divided government "soundly defeated". This article seems significantly biased towards a unified government, and the somewhat absurd declaration of "has our time arrived?" seems to serve no point but to attack the conservative government is portrayed as an antagonist.
Both a unified and divided government have their advantages and disadvantages, but when 46% of voters still voted for McCain, it seems to me that a unified government is hardly responsive to the entire population. One party shouldn't be given complete control of the government - such a concentration of power is dangerous to the minority (which in this case, is little under half the nation) and undermines the goal of a democracy.
The issue with the current state of government is no doubt partisan. Yet as Newsweek points out, Obama has to learn to develop a centrist way of governing if he is too succeed. Despite Obama winning 50 some percent of votes, but more percentage of Americans are central. Not to mention that as Jeff said, there's still that 46% that did not vote for Obama. Not only does he need to show that he can tread both lines, as McCain had said, but not act on his partisan bias.
It's not right to presume that Obama will work for a unified government, since the idea of unified in the next two years could just be Democrats dominating Congress.
Even though a unified government leads to more "change" (to quote Obama), it also leads to less debate and discussions over policy and laws going through the branches of government. Like Kevin said, Bush never vetoed anything until the democrats took control of Congress. McCain said that during his campaign he would use the veto power in office to make sure that rash decisions were not made. Though vetoing slows down the process of government and the reform to lead America in a different direction, it is what the founding fathers put into the Constitution. They made it so that laws would be fully discussed before passing with a majority and that the different branches can have checks on each other. I think a unified government is better now in this recession, but in the future, a divided government can lead to lasting decisions.
chenlina20160719louis vuitton
lebron shoes
nike outlet
hollister outlet
gucci handbags
replica rolex watches
toms shoes
michael kors handbags
oakley canada
adidas shoes
jordan 6
nike basketball shoes
michael kors outlet clearance
louis vuitton outlet
kobe 9
coach factory outlet
air jordan 13
gucci outlet
gucci belts
ralph lauren outlet
jordan shoes
louis vuitton
toms shoes
true religion outlet
michael kors outlet
timberland boots
coach outlet store online
gucci handbags
michael kors outlet store
mont blanc pens
cheap oakley sunglasses
toms shoes
adidas yeezy
celine handbags
true religion jeans sale
louis vuitton handbags
kobe bryant shoes
nike roshe flyknit
nike trainers uk
ralph lauren polo
as
kyrie 6
air max 97
nike shoes
michael kors handbags
off white hoodie
nike air max
nba jerseys
nike shox
coach outlet store
calvin klein outlet
curry shoes
golden goose starter
golden goose
yeezys
supreme clothing
kd shoes
supreme hoodie
lebron 18
longchamp
yeezy boost
Post a Comment