Divided government
In the 20th century, political theorists, professors and old men who sit in barbershops have all debated whether a divided government hinders or helps the continued prosperity of our country. There is no definitive answer to this debate and it will, therefore, continue because it is an enduring reality of our time. As I sit for my haircut, the argument persists around me, with one very old barber arguing that before World War II, our system of a consolidated government was more conducive to passing substantive legislation. "Plain and simple, things got done. My agenda for government, the people's agenda, was accounted for, and that's just not happening these days," the man argued. The other really old barber shot back, "I disagree, because a divided government creates gridlock in the legislative process, leading to compromise and a final bill that better represents my interests." The divided government these men spoke of refers to the situation when the presidency is controlled by one party with its own ideologies and policy positions and the congress is controlled by another party with some competing ideologies and policy positions. Since the framers of the constitution had lived through governmental abuse before, the thou
It wasn't until after World War II that divided government became a factor in this country. However, since 1946, thirty-four of the fifty-four years were years of divided government. One of the best explanations for divided government lies in the fundamental political desires of the people of this country, the electorate. The majority of the people in this country aren't split to either the extreme left or right, but lie somewhere in the middle. They have some beliefs that are strongly rooted in Republican thought, just as they have beliefs that are traditionally Democratic. What this results in come election time is what is known as Split-ticket voting. Split-ticket voting is when someone, rather than vote along strict party lines, votes for the candidate for each respective office (senate, president, etc) that they feel best represents their interests. If someone feels that the Democratic agenda isn't completely to their liking, they can give their vote to a Republican for Congress. Similarly, if they don't trust the Republican agenda completely, they can give their vote, and the power of veto, to a Democrat for President, or vice versa. Doing this creates the situation where compromise between the two parties is going to be necessary, and the electorates interests in the middle are more likely to be represented. Although this gridlock of government hasn't statistically produced less legislation as compared to a unified government, the substance behind the legislation has clearly suffered. Because of the inability of the government pass substantive legislation through the policy-making process, innovative change almost never occurs. Rather, incremental legislation, or legislation without enough substance to effect significant change, has prevailed under our divided government, especially in the last 20 years. Both parties tend to embrace incrementalism when any substantive issue is being pushed through the policy making
Some common words found in the essay are:
Lowi Ginsberg, War II, Congress Presidency, Democrat President, , divided government, President Congress, Congress Similarly, framers constitution, lowi ginsberg, party lines, unified government, government divided, World War, 404 divided government, extreme left, creates situation, lived governmental, world war ii, people country, divided government creates, lowi ginsberg 402, lowi ginsberg 404,
Approximate Word count = 1314
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
