New at Reason
Jacob Sullum shovels some more dirt on the GOP majority and wonders if partisan gridlock might shrink government the way Hastert, Frist and the rest never could.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Andrew | November 1, 2006, 2:52am | #
Well......everybody likes to reference Eisonhower 54-60, and Clinton 94-2000.
But what about Truman 46-48, Nixon-Ford 68-76 and Reagan-Bush I 86-92?
These were also gridlock scenarios...and much less appetising. Especially remember Nixon-Ford...weak Republican Presidents facing a hostile Democratic congress. What did you like BEST about those times?
There IS an alternatie version of Divided Government. One house of congress controlled by one party, the other house controlled by the other. Doesn't matter who gets the White House...he ain't got it all!
Only two examples: Reagan 80-86. Bush II 2000-02.
Not such bad times, as I recall them.
Andrew | November 1, 2006, 3:04am | #
The main virtue of Pure Gridlock, as it's usually touted, is that nothing gets done...which is fine, during a period when nothing much needs to get done - like the late '50s, or the late 90's. It is less appealing during a period when the electorate may feel that decisions DO need to get made.What would be your guess about the next 2, 4 or 6 years?
The virtue of the alternative (divided houses) model is the check on the President, and the responsibility imposed on the Opposition by virtue of controlling one (but not both) houses. Have the Dems, excluded from both houses, been a GOOD opposition, by anyone's standards?
Genghis Kahn | November 1, 2006, 3:32am | #
If the elections go right, the same mindless partisanship can put the bridle back on Leviathan.I dunno why I don't quite believe it's going to be so nice and clean this time around. Bush did the Medicare disaster, and the only thing you heard from the Democrats was that the bill didn't spend enough.
The Dems will want to spend less on defense and war but lots lots LOTS more on welfare. They will want us to bow at the UN alter (those damned unilateralists anyway). We really should be asking the French for permission every time we breath.
Somebody tell me where the restraint comes from here, I'm not seeing it....
The only hope I see lies in the future. First the Republicans have to get the snot beat out of them. For a while.
Then the Republicans might reform themselves. Maybe join a 12 step program. Then, become avowed fiscal constraintist-ers once again.
Then, if they can take back congress, and we get a Democrat president, maybe we can repeat the Clinton years.
I have little faith that the Democrats are going to reel in Bush's spending, whether they get one or both houses. I could even see Bush letting the Dems spend more on social crap as long as he gets his defense budgets.
The result could end up being useful--or end up being sorta like two drunks arguing over which type of fortified wine they should get at the 7-11. In the end, we'll probably end up with plentiful amounts of both Thunderbird and Wild Turkey.
joe | November 1, 2006, 8:41am | #
An important factor Jacob leaves out is that the change in Congressional (especially House) leadership will undo the practices of the Delay machine.In an effort to create a permanent Republican majority, Tom Delay (and Jack Abramoff, and Karl Rove, and a lot of other people) established a system of completely excluding the opposition party from legislation; of strongarming the entire Republican caucus into marching lockstep behind whatever the leadership produced; of reducing the power of committee chairmen, making them mere administrative arms of the leadership; of cheating on procedure to ram through giant, unread bills; of using the conference committee to introduce new items and undo changes that the leadership didn't like; and of using earmarks and regulatory policy to win the loyalty and money of K Street. All of this has been terrible for fiscal restraint, for transparency, and for common sense.
If the Democrats were to simply reintroduce the rules and practices of Congress circa 1996, many of the worse outcomes we've seen over the past five or so years would be eliminated.
thoreau | November 1, 2006, 8:51am | #
I think Jacob said everything I have to say. Except that, to respond to some of the comments here, it's not a question of whether Democrats want to spend more money. Of course they do. It's a question of whether they want to spend the money in the same way that Bush does, and whether he'll be willing to wield a veto pen against them that he would never wield against his own party.Also, a narrow Dem majority operating in the usual disorganized Dem manner against a lean, mean GOP caucus will have a hard time getting stuff done, regardless of what Bush does. The Dems simply do not know how to manage opposition. Republicans, OTOH, are experts at it. These are the people who investigated every allegation ever made against Bill Clinton. I'm quite confident that the GOP minority in Congress will (1) pull out every procedural and parliamentary trick in the book (especially in the Senate) and (2) succeed in getting a few maverick Dems to cross lines from time to time. The GOP was all about spending when they thought that lavishing the money could make themselves popular. I doubt they'll be as inclined to let the Dems do the same.
My greatest hope for 2006 is that the Dems take both houses of Congress by narrow margins. My greatest hope for 2008 is that the Dems lose Congress and gain the White House. Republican Congresses seem to be pretty good at keeping Dem Presidents on a leash.
Thoreau's thinking is pretty much my own. At a minimum, the Republicans need a good ass-whuppin'.
R C Dean | November 1, 2006, 10:11am | #
If the Democrats were to simply reintroduce the rules and practices of Congress circa 1996 . . .Why would they do that? Your asking party leadership to give up power. I don't see it happening. They certainly haven't been running on it.
Also, a narrow Dem majority operating in the usual disorganized Dem manner . . .
I seem to recall some pretty tough Dem machines when they held the majority.
My greatest hope for 2006 is that the Dems take both houses of Congress by narrow margins.
I'm rooting for a Dem House, Rep Senate, mainly because of judicial appointments.
My greatest hope for 2008 is that the Dems lose Congress and gain the White House.
Depends on who the Presidential candidates are.
Andrew | November 1, 2006, 11:54am | #
What happens AFTER Diided Gvt.?Usually the Democrats take over. All three elected branches. 48, 60, 76, 92.
The exception: The Republicans succeeded the last DG, first winning the White House, but losing the Senate, then regaining the Senate.
In every case, the decisive Presidential race was a squeaker. Even Clinton 92 couldn't bring home a majority, or on his next try.
Perhaps what happens is that the party which controls congress (both houses) can ALWAYS steal the Presidency, sooner or later.
The electorate dimly wants to maintain the division - which is why the race is so close - but this is difficult for voters to triangulate.
Andrew | November 1, 2006, 12:04pm | #
I should add to the above that the 1948 elections were the most anamolous, with the President hanging on, and the Congressional Party getting booted.Doesn't strike me as being too likely to happen again...but who knows?
This is fun to think about. Too bad the thread has been so unanalytical.
Jim Walsh | November 1, 2006, 5:06pm | #
Based on Clinton's record vis-a-vis Dubya, one could suggest that the best hope for smaller, less intrusive government is to vote for Democrats. In a spin on the "only Nixon can go to China" theory, you could argue that only the Democrats can get away politically with reducing government bureaucracy.I'm not saying they will, just that there's a better chance of it happening...
MUTT | November 1, 2006, 7:35pm | #
Any you guys live around San Diego? Im thinkin (to ease inevitable pain & horror) a booze & pot fueled Illiction Returns night at my place....Room for all to crash. No need to brave the Polizei.....Bean sprouts & other healthful snacks. Flush that crap down w/ sausages.....im trolling for some of my (suspiciously ostentatious) non political biker trash friends.....