2006-12-10 00:46:36 · 5 answers · asked by Slug 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Control of Congress by one party, an Executive of the other party, and a non partisan Judiciary, so that each can act as a check on the others. It's not a question of one party having "heart" and the other having "muscle", those are false distinctions between the Republicans and the Democrats. It's a matter of keeping one party from usurping all power, it's a matter of preventing tyranny by the majority. We can do okay with a single party in the White House and in charge of Congress if Congress acts independently and not as a rubber stamp for the President.
2006-12-11 00:45:20 · answer #1 · answered by Red Herring 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's best to either have a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, or a Republican president with a Democratic controlled Congress.
The reason for this is that in our government, we need both heart AND muscle. Democrats are known for having heart. Republicans are known for having muscle.
Of course, there are compassionate Republicans, and there are strong Democrats...but the parties as a whole are what I described.
2006-12-10 08:50:21 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Independents may be best. They lack the 'party' mentality and do not owe 'favors' to their party.
Wouldn't Giuliani (for prez.) and Lieberman (for vice prez.) make an interesting 'independent' ticket?
2006-12-10 18:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with farkas above. I think that you need the balance of opposing bodies to really have fairness, and quality in Government.
2006-12-10 08:53:35 · answer #4 · answered by The Idealist 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that a mix is good. When one party, including my own, has both for too long, things stagnate.
2006-12-10 08:54:19 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋