I never said it exists, has existed or ever would exist. That does not mean we should not strive for it.

Here’s the rub–your ideal of a two party, divided government when you get right to its core is this: it is the system that will do the LEAST HARM. That is pretty cynical.

My ideal–whether it is a two party system working together or a single party working to achieve the best interests of everyone will do the MOST GOOD.

Naive? Probably. But only unrealistic if I expect the cotton candy clown to wrap it up and hand it to me in a shiny box.

I read your post on our own site as well as all the links to previous posts…and even read a few more. There was a time when you were not so cynical, it seems, about the George Bush and Co. running the show…maybe not happy about it, but prior to 2004 you seemed at least willing to see where it took the country.

OK, you got burned by the wrong people. I could have told you that if you were willing to listen back in 2001.

Now, do I want a dominant single party in the next election with either Clinton or Obama at the helm? No. Will I vote against either of them simply because maintaining two parties will mean LESS HARM.

That is not only too simple, it’s absurd. I said in my first post that by and large I agree with your premise as you have laid it out historically (no need to send me link hopping to other people who agree with you), but it is a very stupid reason to vote for McCain.

That said – you are right. Working on another post and taxes now, so I’ll get back to Terrence later, as his comment does deserve more. I’ll say one thing now – I don’t find his comment “unrealistic”. I see it as a simple straightforward rationale for an unfettered exercise of power. It is the identical rationale one hears from all partisans on the right or left. “We are obviously right, they are obviously wrong. We need all the power so we can steamroll their obstruction and get things [the things we want] done!”

I also do not find it optimistic. I find it frightening.

You on, OTOH, I do find unrealistic, as well as misunderstanding our history. Unrealistic because this…

“a no-party government with civic-minded adults who have no interest in lifetime jobs in the government.”

… has never existed in this country (maybe anywhere), and never will. It is based on an unrealistic notion of human nature. Moreover, the founding fathers also had no such expectation. They expected that people were people and given the opportunity, would misuse government to further their own selfish or ideological agendas. Your negative description of political parties is realistic, and exactly what the founding fathers expected out of fallible humans with their hands on government power. The separation of power into co-equal branches was designed specifically to moderate that impulse of human nature. For clarity on this, I suggest you spend some time with Federalist #51 by James Madison:

“”Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other — that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.”

I have seen it written that the founders did not anticipate the rise of political parties in this system. If so, then this may be a defect in the constitution. Not because parties fighting are contentious and – well – “partisan” and slowing government action – that is all good. That is exactly how our system was designed to work. The problem is that they did not anticipate how a sufficiently strong single party in control of both the legislative and executive branch can override, bypass and make irrelevant the checks and balances built into the constitution. If it is a defect in the constitution, it is a defect that voters can remedy by always voting for divided government. For more on this notion of single party government overriding constitutional checks and balances, reference this Harvard Law Review article entitled Separation of Parties not Powers by Daryl J. Levinson and Richard H. Pildes.

Or – reference The Who:

There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

TerenceC might be more optimistic than realistic, but he made some good points and that deserved more than a snarky outtake from an old Who song.

If the Dems were seriously interested correcting the abuses of the last 8 years, I’d hand them keys to all three branches in a heartbeat. The scary thing is that we are handing them the keys to a Dick Cheney-Karl Rove-Dave Addington empowered presidency–a presidency with no restrictions.

The cynic in me thinks Clinton is fighting so hard to be president RIGHT NOW even though it seems clear she has lost not because she wants to help people, but because rarely in our history has so much power been centered on the president. Hilary doesn’t want to risk waiting and seeing it diminished

That’s the cynic.

That said, I know you love the notion of divided government and by and large I agree with that simply because divided government requires compromise….but compromise is not the best solution. In compromise, both sides lose

Insread, what we want is collaboration or cooperation. 16 years of Clinton and Bush have so polarized the parties that seems like an impossibility today, but our founding fathers did not envision a divided government. The co-equal branches were supposed to watchdog each other, not the parties.

Parties are inherently self-interested groups with agendas, and the primary agenda is the gathering and keeping of power followed by whatever goals the party loosely has as a platform. Neither party, thanks to the aforementioned polarizing, really represents the good of everyone.

Preferable to a two-party divided government would be a no-party government with civic-minded adults who have no interest in lifetime jobs in the government.

“strong leadership will be needed … the ability to make the tough decisions will need to be the rule… that will take a congressional majority in order to do it quickly… The entrenched corporate interests will need to be squeezed – that takes a lot of power and a lot of agreement without compromise. – tc

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.