I don’t think that we can have much faith that any of the current crop of politicians will behave responsibly – ex

Guess what? It is not just the current crop. It is the nature of the beast which is unchanged from the days of the founders until now. Madison understood the nature of politicians in a position of power:

“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. ” – Federalist 51

Hence the need for “ambition to be set against ambition” and the rationale for checks, balance and separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. What Madison and the other founders did not anticipate was the power of political parties to undermine these constitutional constructs under One Party Rule. This defect in the Constitution can be remedied by voters choosing divided government.

“i question your world view…” – JS

I am shocked and saddened.

Instead of turning to divided government like some magical catch-all cure for ALL of America’s ills, why not focus on the preservation of liberties and checking all executives, judges, and legislators no matter which the state of the government? Why not rail against the two party system which forces us into these horrible choices? Plus, who are you mad at here? Why aren’t you mad at all at the Republicans who sowed this whirlwind? -lit

I don’t consider divided government a “cure-all”. I consider it a tourniquet. I would like to see more choices. I would like to see more focus on the preservation of liberties and candidates that support them. I won’t have any of those options when I step into the voting booth in two weeks.

While we are building a hospital to treat the US Government patient of all its many liberty-deficient ills, the patient is bleeding to death by the side of the road. The first thing to do is control the bleeding. Divided government does that. And in 2008, there is no other practical voting measure we can take that has any chance of accomplishing that objective as effectively as maintaining divided government.

Do I want to punish the Republicans? Yes. I am perfectly happy with he Republicans getting crushed in both houses of congress (but I hope they do not lose the filibuster). At this point, I would be delighted to seem a viable (i.e. not Libertarian Party) limited government, fiscal conservative, liberty focused alternative emerge out of the ashes of the Republican party. In the meantime, I don’t want to see things get worse by giving Democrats all the keys.

Now I have a question for lit and shawn: After having an unfettered One Party Rule Republican government amputate our civil liberty left leg, why do you think it is a cure to have an unfettered One Party Rule Democratic government amputate our economic liberty right leg?

“Iran contra wasn’t GWB…” Chris
“…the abuses and trumped up wars that happened under divided government? Off the top of my head, there’s was McCarthyism, Nixon’s abuses and war crimes, the Iran-Contra scandal by hero of the American people Ollie North.” – lit

@Chris – I didn’t say Iran contra was GWB, in fact I didn’t mention it all, because as lit points out – it occurred during the Reagan administration, a period of divided government.

@lit – Lit completely misses the point. I am not saying that abuses of power and corruption do not occur during periods of divided government. Of course they do. There is a significant difference however when these abuses emerge under periods of divided goernment vs. single party rule. The difference is one of degree, and a significant factor in how bad abuse can get is determined by whether the opposition party is able to expose and spotlight the abuses and corruption. Iran-Contra is a perfect case in point. The Iran-Contra story broke in late 1986. In 1987 both houses of Congress (controlled by Democrats) launched televised hearings and investigations into the affair. If we did not have divided government, the executive sponsored Tower Commission might have been the only authoritative investigation and much of the truth of the affair may never have emerged. Similarly, Nixon’s abuses and the evidence for impeachment was revealed during congressional hearings chaired by the opposition party during a period of divided government.

7) US image world-wide – Obama. Agree, but it is a nice-to-have and not necessary.

If you think this is only a nice-to-have I question your worldview and evaluations concerning where the world is heading.

3) Supreme court picks – Slight edge to Obama – Agree with you on this one, but do not have a problem with McCain nominating judges. The Dems will have a big majority in the Senate and will control the confirmation. McCain has shown he is willing to stand up to his own party on the issue of judges (Gang of 14), and will nominate based on competence, not ideology. This one is almost a wash.

McCain has sworn that he will appoint judges just like Dubya appointed. The strategy is simple, after all, unless the Democrats get 60 or more Senate seats. Get a nice conservative like Roberts. Coach him intensively on how to lie and tap-dance at the committee hearings. Run a huge PR campaign with all the usual talking points about the right of the sitting president and also threaten to filibuster everything under the sun until the guy is on the bench. Voila, another far right winger on the SC. We can’t afford that kind of effrontery to justice to continue.

1) Iraq and Afghanistan. – Draw – This is the one issue I said would over-ride the divided government voting heuristic. If it made a difference getting out, I would support Obama. However, events have overtaken the campaigns. the withdrawal timetable is being set by Maliki and the Iraqi government. There will be no difference in the rate of drawdown regardless of who is president. If anything, I actually think it is more likely that we can get out faster with McCain, as he will be in a better position to manage the objections from the ragged right.

2) Divided Government – McCain – No contest. No other way to get there in 2009

3) Supreme court picks – Slight edge to Obama – Agree with you on this one, but do not have a problem with McCain nominating judges. The Dems will have a big majority in the Senate and will control the confirmation. McCain has shown he is willing to stand up to his own party on the issue of judges (Gang of 14), and will nominate based on competence, not ideology. This one is almost a wash.

4) The Economy – McCain – Obama has to raise more taxes than he is claiming now if he wants to deliver on even a small fraction of his promises.

5)Health Care – McCain – Looks like we will socialize it regardless of who becomes president, I have a mild preference for McCains plan.

6) Education – McCain – If you are asking Public school teachers about vouchers, you are asking the wrong people. Ask the parents who have to send their kids to failed public schools.

7) US image world-wide – Obama. Agree, but it is a nice-to-have and not necessary.

8) Possibility of the current administration prosecuted for their abuses of power. – Obama – Agree with you on this one – but – Although this is far more likely with Obama, I just don’t believe for a second that it is going happen. Like he has done all along, Obama will ignore the clamoring from the far left once he is elected no longer needs them. He really has no interest in taking this on. It’ll distract from his other ambitions.

(Next time I comment on anything, I’m gonna try to include a Bill and Ted reference)

Holy crap, I can feel the bitterness coming off my monitor in waves! I agree with everything until the last paragraph, though. My mother used to have an old saying, “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.” Electing Democrats as a “punishment” to Republicans would be exactly that. Instead, we as an electorate need to take a new approach to all of our elected officials. Rather than supporting a candidate and turning a blind eye to their shortcomings (hence the dichotomy of the low Congressional approval rating yet a high rate of incumbent success), we should be our chosen candidates’ most vocal critics. We need to take back responsibility for who we put in office, and hold them directly, immediately accountable for their actions.

My sense with MW’s post is that that last bit–accountability–will be hard to come by in a unified government with a supermajority. The Democrats will see it as a mandate instead of a grave duty and responsibility. Given the track record of the last 16 years (and longer), I don’t think that we can have much faith that any of the current crop of politicians will behave responsibly without the public breathing down their collective necks.

The GOP has allowed its worst elements to take it over, and have strayed far from the basic principles that it’s claimed to represent. It needs a serious thrashing at the polls if it’s to have any chance of fixing itself.

We need to completely reject the neocons so hopefully the Republican party can push them out and get its act together. I don’t think the Democrats will be particularly bad, but even if I had some reservations about them, I still think the country would be best served in the long term by sending the GOP back to their rooms to think about what they’ve done for a while.

Your sarcasm is weak, grasshopper. Because if you weren’t worried about the possibility of a Democratic blowout, you wouldn’t be here screeching about the evils of united government.

In any case, your political junkie emo act is getting old. What if I breathlessly recited all the abuses and trumped up wars that happened under divided government? Off the top of my head, there’s was McCarthyism, Nixon’s abuses and war crimes, the Iran-Contra scandal by hero of the American people Ollie North. Plus recently in the 90s the Clinton impeachment and government shutdown showed us the joys of divided government.

Freedoms erode as governments gobble more power. This truism applies to any kind of government, united or divided.

Instead of turning to divided government like some magical catch-all cure for ALL of America’s ills, why not focus on the preservation of liberties and checking all executives, judges, and legislators no matter which the state of the government? Why not rail against the two party system which forces us into these horrible choices?

Plus, who are you mad at here? Why aren’t you mad at all at the Republicans who sowed this whirlwind? According to you, they had united government and abused their powers horribly, so now we need to be careful and moderate about who we elect? The American people don’t care. They’ve been screwed, and now it’s time for punishment. This isn’t about rewarding the Democrats, or voting for a freshman Senator who may or may not end up being Pelosi’s lapdog. People are punishing the Republicans, and whipping them once wasn’t enough, so they’ll do it again.

Divided government is important but it is not the MOST important issue. In my mind the importance of issues is something like this:
1) Possibility of the current administration prosecuted for their abuses of power. Specifically torture and, to a lesser degree, wiretapping and the attorney firings. (Edge: Obama)
2) VP pick. (Edge: Obama. I love Biden, am terrified of Palin)
3) Iraq and Afghanistan (Slight edge to Obama; they are locked into the strategies but I feel like there might be stronger international support for him)
3) Supreme court being liberal leaning so as to keep Roe v Wade safe and make possible issue 1 (Slight edge to Obama)
4) Divided Government (Edge to McCain)
5) The Economy (Edge to McCain mostly because I think its an issue that can be best dealt with in a divided bickering fashion)
6) Health Care (Edge: Obama)
7) US image world-wide (Edge: Obama)
8) Education (Edge: Obama; I’ve heard enough rants from teachers about how vouchers don’t work)