Saturday, July 18, 2009

More dysfunction

From January 2001 until January 2007, the Republicans owned the federal government and nearly everyone agrees (now) it didn't work out too well. Things got so fucked up that in 2006 Democrats regained majorities in the House and, more or less, the Senate. For two years, we were back to divided government. By then, Bush was seeing his job approval swirling down the crapper and his popular support reduced to deadenders. The damage done, he put it on automatic pilot and started mailing it in. He did one good thing, replacing Rumsfeld with Robert Gates. Otherwise, his only purpose in life was to veto whetever Dems in congress wanted and play golf.

Anyone who saw the train wreck at the beginning of the Harrison Ford movie The Fugitive has a good metaphorical reference point for the eight years of President George W. Bush. By November 2008, things were so totally fucked that the country worked off some frustration by electing a guy whose middle name was Hussein (overwhelming irony). The Democrats increased their majorities in Congress, too.

As a rule, I'm against single-party federal government, and prefer to see one party controlling the executive branch, the other running the legislative, and (ideally) a neutral judicial branch. We haven't had that exact combination in a long time.

The reason the Democrats control the House and Senate is that they won elections in red states and red (or purple) House districts. Consequently, there are many conservative Dems in Congress and almost no liberal Republicans, producing what effectively amounts to a divided government.

Obama can forget seeing his agenda slicing through the Senate like a hot knife through butter. That may or may not be good for the country, but I personally prefer no legislation to bad legislation when it comes to trillion-dollar propositions.

No comments:

Post a Comment