Separation of powers, not separation of parties

[John Galt]

[wormwood]

[wormwood]

[Hyperion]

And yet all calls for reform that would build a multi-party system (eliminating the electoral college, changing how representation is alloted) are rejected by the very same people claiming they want to topple the oligopoly of two... So long as we operate a republican system, our best bet is to empower many different political parties so that alliances are formed and collapse regularly. Pluralism.

Most presidents have been clearly frustrated by the partisan breakdown the occurs in Congress and extends into the executive.

[Pebble]

I understand your thrust Professor - that the constitution is designed with the idea that the three branches of government form a check and balance on one another and this breaks down when one party has control of two of them - and I recognise the problem. It's actually similar to one of the problems that the Westminster system currently has. Parliament, in the UK for example, is sovereign. Further the executive and the legislative are effectively the same body so when one party has a majority they can (providing that their representatives don't rebel) force through any legislation they like. Whilst they obviously have a mandate to govern they can force through poor legislation that goes very much against public opinion.

I'm just not sure that your analysis beyond that (of boom and bust times being related to split control) is accurate. Beyond the obvious 'correlation doesn't imply causation' issue a number of incredibly important changes to American society have happened during periods of one party control. Among them The Fifteenth Amendment (1870), The Repeal of Prohibition (1933), The Civil Rights Act (1964) and The Social Security Act (1965). All were incredibly important moments in the development of modern America and all of them happened during periods of one party dominance.

All of these changes (and all, I put to you, were for the better) required massive support in Congress. Lawmaking is an organic process - there are tos and fros enactments and repeals. There are of course bad, bad pieces of law passed during these times too but it's the general progressive trend punctuated by these moments that enables a country to move forward. Would it better for the country to have more diversity of opinion, always. Would it be better for the country if lawmakers spent more time critiquing the laws of their own parties, of course. Would it be fantastic to see discourse move beyond a partisan "gotta make him a one termer" attitude, absolutely. It is, however, far more complex than 'stagmire' v 'dominance.'

[Hyperion]

Professor was definitely grasping for straws when he listed the 2009-2010 Democratic period of control alongside a recession that occurred earlier under a mixed government. The recession technically ended in 2009. We're experiencing nothing extraordinary in terms of lagging unemployment. Keep in mind economists were predicting 7.5-8% unemployment for the end of 2013. We've performed better than expectations. (I even saw conservative and libertarian economists asserting over 10% unemployment into 2014 - no comment))

[Breakage]