OPINION & EDITORIAL
Divided we stand, united we fall?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Your Christmas gift: Lighten up! (December 13, 2007)
- America in dire need of education on gender identity (December 7, 2007)
- Getting off or going down: Is porn destructive? (December 5, 2007)
Related Stories:
- First to the polls, then to the streets (January 21, 2008)
- Edwards lesser of three evils (January 21, 2008)
- Dems field diverse candidates (February 7, 2007)
- Idealism on tap at Obama fundraiser (October 16, 2007)
by Jason Smathers
Monday, January 21, 2008
The change in mind this election year isn’t a revolution;
it’s not a complete overhaul of American foreign policy, and it’s not universal
health care. At least, not according to Barack Obama. Instead, the ever-inspiring
and optimism-saturated senator has pushed a far fuzzier message: Come together.
Smile on your brother. Kumbayah.
The message may not be quite that happy-go-lucky, but it’s
certainly just as idealistic. After decades of Democratic and Republican
wrangling and no third party in sight, Mr. Obama has made his hope and vision a
little less vague, by saying he will be the “post-partisan” candidate that will
bring American government together and chart a course for an equally unified
America.
Unfortunately, those are two completely different kinds of
America.
Our nation’s lawmakers don’t think in terms of rosy
handholding and free love. To Washington, change means compromise instead of
gridlock. While those frustrated with stagnation in Washington may be
encouraged to vote for a candidate who pushes forward a message of
widespread change, that thinking could have disastrous effects. That’s because
the success of change doesn’t just depend on the commander in chief’s
initiative, but also on who he or she works with to make that change. If
another Republican enters the Oval Office, we may have more change than certain
Democrats can provide. That’s because, despite its name, divided government is
the only path for meaningful progress, especially given how “change” has
ravaged this country at times.
In the last 50 years, divided government has been relatively
common. During the ‘50s, a combination of the Democratic Legislature and
Republican executive resulted in an end to the Korean War, incredibly low rates
of inflation and only minimal flare-ups in the Cold War. When united government
resurfaced, it led to high inflation, expansive foreign policy disasters —
Vietnam, of course — and a rebellious counterculture that derailed the
legitimacy of the President Lyndon Johnson and cut the “Great Society” short.
It took divided government, along with a secretive Nixon administration, to
restore order and reduce a national crisis to a cultural hangover. It may not
have looked pretty the way it happened — especially when the president and
secretary of state aren’t exactly choirboys — but it did stop the bleeding
before a second unified government under the Carter administration lost the
plot again.
The same sort of stability occurred during the Clinton presidency
— low inflation, low unemployment, economic prosperity along with relative
peace in terms of foreign policy. However, the pitfalls of unified government
revealed themselves again during the six years of Republican control.
Now, with a Democratic Congress, gridlock has returned, and
the electorate seems poised to reverse most of the right-wing agenda with a
unified Democratic government.
What a mistake that would be.
Despite having the greatest ability to effect change, the
fact of the matter is that, unified government results in governmental inertia.
After years of rallying against the more liberal of Clinton’s policies, George
W. Bush and Sept. 11 gave the Republican Congress free rein to remake the
country as they saw fit. With six years of unopposed “progress,” foreign policy
has run out of control while our economy and environment have been left to
languish.
It’s easy to pin this on Mr. Bush. After all, he seems to be
the biggest catalyst for all this change. However, without any legislative
conscience, any president can treat the country like his or her political
dollhouse. If the frustration of the Democratic Senate and House of
Representatives is any reflection, bipartisan change is not what’s on the
agenda for John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Both have fairly similar plans on
how to alter the course of this nation — universal health care, more
restrictive trade policies, ending the war in Iraq — but the lengths that each
of them are willing to take them is what could make or break our government.
With Ms. Clinton and Mr. Edwards waiting in the wings to slay the war hawks and
the liberal bogeyman of corporate greed, their vitriol toward the right might
result in a unified government that turns on tunnel vision once again, just in
the opposite direction.
In that sense, a Republican president may not be the worst
decision for America at this point. Sen. John McCain may now be pandering to
the conservative base, but if he decides to once again take up the banner of
Goldwater Republicans, he could provide a perfect complement to a visibly
frustrated Democratic congress.
Skepticism of Mr. Obama’s “post-partisan” politics is
partially developed out of a sinister second meaning appropriated by bandwagon
“agents of change” — pushing an agenda through a unified government with little
to no opposition. It’s not partisan because there is only one side. Yes, they
could get a lot done. They could also do a lot of damage. If the latter
happens, the resulting voter revulsion might just turn this generation’s
“agents of change” into a new counterculture. Then — for better or worse — you’ll
have your revolution.
Change is a fine idea, as long as we know how to execute it. While we may be swayed by talk of hope, vision, experience and change, understand that it all has to produce the same result: progress.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com)
is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
Anonymous (January 21, 2008 @ 11:57pm):
Jason, I completely agree, fantastic article. Divided government is generally the best partisan setup for a successful US government. It limits both parties from transforming their ideological excesses into policy. Additionally, it limits both parties from ethical and authoritarian immoderation, because the parties like holding their partisan opponents accountable a lot more than the corrupt or misguided in their own ranks.
It is easy to forget that 1995-2000 and 1981-1988 were some of the most successful years the US federal government has had in a while, and under the administration of divided government. At the same time, it is easy to recognize that the excesses of the Democrats, in 1993-1994, and the GOP, from 2001-2006, occurred in the absence of divided government.
Partisanship is often lamented in the US today (as you pointed out), but I agree it is one of the greatest unintended checks and balances in our system of government when institutionalized in the form of divided government (one party partially or fully controlling the legislative branch and the other the presidency). One of the primary reasons I will be voting for a Republican president in 2008 (and would have voted for Kerry in 2004) is that I detest what united government brings with it and appreciate divided governments impressive and underappreciated record of accomplishment.
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 12:54am):
Words can't describe how much I hate you and your Obama bashing Jason.
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 1:37am):
Whats with the Herald's Obama bashing today??
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 6:33am):
An incompetent, ineffective government is the best government. Let people have their freedom and America will be better off.
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 9:54am):
"After years of rallying against the more liberal of Clintons policies..."
Clinton a liberal?! Are you nuts?! He signed the Defense of Marriage Act in September '96, two months before being re-elected! In '98 he got just as tough with Iraq as either Bush!
Read your history, Jason. Clinton wasn't nearly as liberal as you'd like to think he was.
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 1:11pm):
Commenter,
I said, his more liberal policies. Clinton was obviously a proponent of globalization and neo-liberal (codeword, conservative) economic policies. Plus, his foreign policy didn't always go totally liberal. More middle path.
I know my history, you just can't expect me to extrapolate in a sentence.
-Jason Smathers
mw (January 22, 2008 @ 9:17pm):
Jason,
Excellent column. We have a system of government built on checks, balances and separation of power. The constitution was designed with a specific architecture to ensure that as James Madison said in the Federalist Papers <i>"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."</i> Divided Government reinforces the foundation of our Federal Government. It works the way it was designed to work by the founders - messy, slow, and contentious. Single party government bypasses and undermines the checks and balances, restrains oversight, invariably increases opportunity for corruption, bad decision making, with consistent disastrous results.
I have been beating the drum for Divided Government on my blog for almost two years now. Coincidently it is titled <b>"Divided We Stand United We Fall"</b>. I would sue you over the title, except that Dick Myer of CBS used it to title his column in 2004, and the phrase was actually coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter to Rabbi Jacob De La Motta - the full quote <i>"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, divided we stand, united we fall."</i>
Shawn Snyder (January 24, 2008 @ 1:51am):
An article of yours I like? It's a miracle! Congrats.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
