Op-Ed piece for the week of Oct.
18th
Election Analysis and Commentary
Sunday, October
15, 2000
Eric L. Davis
Divided government - one party in control of the
White House, the other party in control of one or both houses
of Congress - has characterized 34 of the 56 years since the end
of World War II. Does divided government hinder the federal government's
ability to respond to important national problems, or is it another
manifestation of the Founders' wisdom in establishing a complex
political system in 1787?
Let's take a look at the record of party control
at the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue since the death of Franklin
D. Roosevelt in April 1945.
Truman (D) - Single party control for 6 years, divided
government for 2 years (Republicans controlled both House and
Senate in 1947 and 1948)
Eisenhower (R) - Single party control for 2 years,
divided government for 6 years (Democrats controlled both House
and Senate from 1955 through 1960)
Kennedy/Johnson (D) - Single party control for 8
years
Nixon/Ford (R) - Divided government for 8 years
(Democrats controlled both House and Senate from 1969 through
1976)
Carter (D) - Single party control for 4 years
Reagan (R) - Divided government for 8 years (Democrats
controlled House from 1981 through 1988 and Senate in 1987 and
1988)
Bush (R) - Divided government for 4 years (Democrats
controlled both House and Senate from 1989 through 1992)
Clinton (D) - Single party control for 2 years,
divided government for 6 years (Republicans controlled both House
and Senate from 1995 through 2000)
In the last two decades, there were only two years
- 1993 and 1994 - in which the same party controlled the Presidency,
the House, and the Senate. Common party control did allow President
Clinton to push his budget-balancing measures through Congress
in his first two years in office. Some analysts credit this package,
which included large tax increases, with setting the federal budget
on the path from deficit to surplus. Yet common party control
did not help the President, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, see enactment
of the health care reform package they proposed in 1993. Indeed,
public reaction against the budget and health care measures of
Clinton's first two years set the stage for the Republican takeover
of Congress in 1994, the first midterm election of the Clinton
presidency.
Single-party government has helped some presidents
enact major legislative programs. The best example in the modern
era is Lyndon Johnson's Great Society of 1964 through 1966. Johnson,
who had spent his entire career on Capitol Hill before becoming
first Vice President and then President, used his extensive knowledge
of, and personal relations with, the House and Senate to see passage
of initiatives in civil rights, education, health care, transportation,
and urban policy that set federal policy in a new direction for
nearly a generation. Johnson's directing and cajoling legislative
action from the White House during the first half of his presidency
is probably the closest thing the United States has seen in the
modern era to a parliamentary-style government, with Johnson as
prime minister and chief whip.
Other presidents have been able to overcome divided
government and push measures through a Congress controlled by
the other party. The best recent example is Ronald Reagan_s economic
program of 1981, including substantial tax cuts and reductions
in government spending. This program was passed by a House of
Representatives in which the Democrats had a majority. Reagan
overcame the Democrats' majority by appealing over the heads of
members of the House directly to their constituents. Reagan used
his skills as the "Great Communicator" to persuade enough Democratic
House members that the Reagan program was popular back home that
they broke party ranks and voted for the tax and spending cuts.
A more negative approach to divided government has
been seen in Bill Clinton's second term. Clinton has used the
veto, or the threat of a veto, very effectively to get his way
with a Republican Congress, especially on appropriations and budget
issues. While Clinton does not have the political strength, either
in Washington or in the country, to enact a wide-ranging legislative
program, he does have the veto pen. Sometimes even the threat
of a presidential veto late in the legislative session, when members
want to get home to campaign, has been enough to force the Republicans
to drop desired programs from their budget bills, in order to
avoid getting drawn into a confrontation with the president.
Some analysts - such as University of California
political scientist Gary Jacobson - have argued that in an era
when there is a high level of mistrust of government, voters might
actually prefer divided government to single-party control. Under
this reasoning, voters want to avoid a situation in which one
party would have too much power. By electing members of different
parties to the Congress and to the White House, voters guarantee
that the checks and balances system will work effectively.
Mistrust of government leading voters to choose
divided government would be appealing to many of the Framers,
were they still with us today. For many of the Founders, preventing
the government from acting dangerously was more desirable than
energizing government so that it could act positively. Dividing
political control between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue
is another way of checking factions and potentially tyrannical
majorities.
One problem with the argument that voters deliberately
choose divided government is that it assumes that voters behave
very strategically. Because presidential and congressional elections
are held on the same day, voters cannot be sure of the outcome
on any given election day. Thus, it may be reading too much into
a pattern of vote choices to say that the electorate deliberately
decided to put control of the White House and of Congress in different
political parties. Divided government as an electoral outcome
may simply reflect the personal appeal, or the political skill,
of a certain party's set of candidates, rather than a deliberate
choice by the voters.
Divided government is definitely a possibility following
the 2000 elections. If Vice President Gore is elected President,
it is likely that the Republicans will still control at least
one of the houses of Congress. And if Governor Bush is elected
President, it is possible that the Democrats will gain control
of the House on the same day. As for the single-party scenarios,
an all-Republican government, with the GOP holding on to the House
and Senate by the narrowest of margins (perhaps even one or two
seats in each chamber) is more likely than an all-Democratic government.
One would then have to wait until the 2002 midterm elections to
see whether the voters would reward the party in power with more
seats in the House and Senate, or whether divided government would
return, with power again split between a Congress and a Presidency
of opposite parties.
|