The problem with our present political system in the United States is not a lack of bipartisanship, it’s a lack of effective partisanship. Every four years, political parties hammer out a platform identifying the problems they feel we face as a nation and stating their proposed solutions. Ultimately, very few of the remedies proposed in party platforms are enacted into law. As a result, party platforms are largely ignored by many voters, and by politicians in both parties.
This is unfortunate for citizens who long for effective government. For some of us, the position a candidate (and/or party) takes on issues we consider important is our primary means of deciding how to vote. When so few of the proposed remedies in either party’s platform get tested by being implemented, we are left with a dysfunctional government that does not address critical problems effectively.
Gridlock is, of course, one major roadblock on the path from platform to enactment. For thirty of the past forty years, control of the government has been divided, with a president of one party and at least one house of Congress controlled by the other party.
There have, however, been three brief periods over the past four decades when one political party has controlled both the legislative and executive branches. President Carter had a Democratic Congress for all four years of his administration. The Democrats controlled both branches for the first two years of President Clinton’s time in office. And President Bush (the younger) had a Republican majority for four years, from 2003 through 2006.
Neither party took advantage of these opportunities to address any of the major problems facing our country with meaningful legislation. We can’t blame these failures on gridlock. The primary reason parties failed to govern effectively during these periods is the corrupting influence of money within our political system and the duplicity it evokes in politicians.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
Winston, it's interesting to note that each of those three stretches of one-party control ended with a bang rather than a whimper.
2 - Winston Apple
Baronius,
This stretch has barely begun and I'm already whimpering.
3 - Poor RIchard
Winston, It is interesting that you obviously do not believe in the "two party" or "right to disagree" principles. The founders of the country argued and compromised over almost every aspect of our republic. The Democrats have no interest in "compromising" or listening to what the public really wants.
It is also interesting that you believe that the Democrats should use corporate and lobbyist money to replace DINO representatives with Democrats that do not reflect the views of the constituents, but the views of the PARTY. Sounds like Communism to me....Richard Samuel
4 - Winston Apple
Richard, I absolutely believe the two parties should disagree. There's not much point in having more than one party if they don't. I believe that each party should (and in theory does - in their platforms) state what they plan to do if elected. And then do what they say they will.
I believe the corrupting influence of "corporate and lobbyist money" should be overcome by an informed electorate that reads party platforms and holds politicians to their stated intentions instead of deciding how to cast their votes based on television ads, catchy slogans, propaganda and rhetoric.
I would add that part of the problem is trying to fit a wide range of political opinions into the platforms of just two parties. I would refer you to my post on "Proportional Representation" which proposes a system under which third parties could flourish.
In closing, I would also refer you to "The Communist Manifesto." Your understanding of "Communism" seems a bit shaky to me. Have you ever read Marx? I'm about as far from being a communist as a person can get. I am a strong believer in individual liberty (and responsibility).