Apparently, a little gridlock is a good thing: the United States has never gotten involved in a conflict involving more than a week of ground combat when the branches of government are controlled by different parties. Economist William Niskanen explains:
From the dawn of the Cold War until today, we've had only two periods of what could be called fiscal restraint: The last six years of the Eisenhower administration, and the last six years of the Clinton administration, both intervals in which the opposition controlled Congress. Under Clinton, the average annual increase in spending was at about 1 percent, while, under Ike, it was negative. By contrast, our unified governments have gone on fiscal benders. Harry Truman, with the help of a Democratic Congress, sent the money flying, with spending increases of as high as 10 percent a year. Lyndon Johnson was almost as profligate. And today, unfortunately, George W. Bush, with a GOP majority, is the heir to their legacies. To put this in plain numbers, government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government. That's a hefty premium to pay for a bit of unity.
Equally striking is that these spending increases have generally found the same recipient: the Pentagon. It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example--World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. Needless to say, this reduces outlays in both blood and treasure.
- Log in to post comments
Divided government is an important constraint on government encroachment on areas where individual freedoms should reign. Legislative gridlock helps to preserve a pluralistic society.
Divided govts. are on average better for the NIH budget as well...
As a nitpick, the Spanish-American War was started in 1898 by a Republican president with a Republican congress. This was started technically before the 20th century began but continued into it, as the resulting conflict against the Phillipine "insurrection" lasted well until 1913. (There, as in Iraq, we won the war in a matter of weeks, but it took us something like a decade to win the peace.) Whether this conflict was "major" is questionable but it did constitute more than a week of ground combat. None of the statements in this article appear to be contradicted by the Spanish-American war, but only due to some interesting tricks of phrasing.
But my comment here of course is just trivia and has no bearing on the actual point of the piece.
Which just supports an assertion I made somewhere else a while back that the best government is a sort of reverse parliamentary system. Instead of letting the majority party (or coalition) appoint a Prime Minister, let the opposition do it.
Couldn't be any worse than anything we have now.