Government In Action or Government Inaction?

With the mid-term election just a few weeks away it seems that there will be some sort of realignment in Congress. Whether the Republicans retain some measure of control or the Democrats install new drapes in the all leadership's offices remains to be seen, but there is little doubt that the political calculus will be somehow altered in the Democrats' favor come Wednesday morning.

Is this a bad thing? That depends on your political leanings, but even the most strident small government conservative can find little to be proud of in the past six years of Republican control of the White House and the past two years of concurrent control of both houses of Congress.

I have discussed with some in the past (Nym Pseudo among others) that perhaps our system of government functions best when control is divided between the two parties since it forces them to work towards the center. When one party has total control it is free to appease its fringes in an effort to perpetuate its unbridled power. If the majority that grants the party its power is a large one it gives the party's fringe great leverage to push legislation, policy and the rest of the country country in a direction that is at variance with the will and the interests of the vast and moderate center of the public at large. If the majority is a small one it renders an ineffective government that gets nothing worthwhile accomplished since it can neither afford to grant the wishes of its base nor alienate that base by moving in a centrist direction. Our current congress is a prime example of this second scenario.

Jon Rauch at The National Journal has an interesting opinion piece here that explores this dynamic, examines some historical precedent for the various political alignments of the past, and reviews the kind of results that each achieved. It seems that history would have perfectly predicted the ineffectiveness of our current congress.

Although I don't agree with every point he makes, he does present a pretty solid argument that strong, single party rule has historically been bad for everybody. For example, he makes the claim that "one party rule has allowed the Republicans to govern from the center of their party, instead of from the center of the country." Furthermore, he argues, it harms not only the general public and the party in opposition, it also harms the party in power as well. An interesting read, I hope you enjoy.

http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm

-Ico

Just a quick note....RSS feed

You can pick up the blog on an RSS feed here.

http://cimasoapbox.blogspot.com/atom.xml

May be easier for some of you to keep up to date.

uneducated sexual predators for office

I am pretty disgusted by the GOP's attempt to misconstrue Kerry's statements as an attack on the troops....seems clear that they are just jumping on this with opportunistic ferver on the off chance it will confuse people into thinking the Dems do not respect our military.

However, this is the same play that the Dems ran when they used Mark Foley to paint the whole GOP as soft on sexual predators.

Does anyone believe that the Dems truly have contempt for the troops or the the GOP is full of child rapists? I don't - but it is apparent that both sides are opportunistic, devoid of ideas and desperate to control the house/Senate.

So .....who is the lesser of the two evils? Maybe I will let my one year old fill out my ballot