Does it seem like the USA gets along better when the White House and the Congress are controlled by opposite?

Question

parties?
When these two branches of government are spilt between the parties, does this create a moderate government?

Well, other than the present congress.
During Clinton's term, the congress was Republican. I believe the reverse was true during Reagan's term.
It seems in past history the truly bad time in America was when both branches were controlled by the same party.

Answer 1

It usually makes it more dysfunctional that it normally would be!~!

Answer 2

It's worked up until now. "Gridlock " is just checks and balances. And the Founders designed it that way on the principle that the less Govt does, the less it does wrong.

We were certainly a stronger, more prosperous nation under Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress. And in most administrations where govt was divided. The exception being the New Deal Era, where the US reached the pinnacle of its greatness and saved the World from Fascist tyranny--which the Republicans hated so much that they've been trying to reverse the outcome of the Second World War ever since.

But Bush, the "Great Polarizer" and his handlers have changed all that. They seem determined to start a Civil War to make him "President for Life."

Answer 3

After 2 years of Democrats controlling the two Congress and the Senate and 3 months of a Democrat president we've had a monetary disaster. A recession. Unemployment on the brink of double digits. The national debt has been doubled in 3 months. Obama's deficit spending is extra advantageous than that of all previous presidents blended. The Dow is down 6000 factors because of the fact his election. we've become so susceptible militarily that the French military is the only one doing some thing relating to the pirates. on the day N. Korea fired a missle and Iran stated they have been enriching uranium for weapons Obama stated we would unilaterally disarm and the investment for missle protection grew to become into decrease from the protection rigidity funds. Obama bowed to a Saudi king. Obama stated that he could have a ethical administration yet nominated somebody to treasury secretary who's a serial tax cheat and did not comprehend that he could not declare his young infants summer season camp as a employer fee! He signed an government order asserting that there could be no lobbiests in his administration and till now the ink grew to become into dry he lifted the order for 2 lobbiests to connect his administration. because of the fact then he has lifted it lots of circumstances I even have lost song. So is this what we get from the social gathering of professional Communists and hate united statesa. first after merely 2 years?!

Answer 4

I think it creates more balance which is good thing for the people in general. Both sides of the spectrum tend to become oppressive, albeit in different areas, when they possess too much of the power base. However, what can be accomplished is also directly related to the size of the majority possessed by an Administration in Congress. Bush had a majority in both houses for part of his tenure, but was still unable to effect certain changes (i.e. Social Security Reform, making tax cuts permanent, etc.). I believe that Americans like to hedge their bets where government is concerned and vote accordingly. This is why we have often had a split government.

Answer 5

The Founding Fathers were prescient when they created the system of checks and balances. Over the years there have been many attempts to subvert the system. The going's-on during this administration are a prime example.

Ultimately, the checks and balances move the country toward the center, which is where, IMHO, most Americans' views reside.

Answer 6

Historically, the voting public appears to prefer this arrangement, and the founding fathers obviously were aware this was likely under the constitution they drafted.

However, it does in fact impede the efficiency of government. That's not necessarily a bad thing most of the time, and again, was obviously an effect intended by the framers. But occasionally, the resulting paralysis makes it impossible to achieve the interests of the American people, however one cares to define those interests. And the complexity of modern bureaucracy makes it a less efficient system than when the United States were a handful of mostly agrarian states and not remotely a world power.

Answer 7

I wouldn't say they get along better. You do get a lot less partisan bills though. We went from one extreme of Congress passing everything Bush wanted and only what Bush wanted to almost nothing getting passed now. Under better circumstances I would say that a mix is good for government but right now there is so much animosity because everyone is voting according to their party, rather than what they think is right.

Answer 8

It seems to me that there is frequently grid lock under these circumstances. I favor less government, so grid lock looks like a good thing to me.
When Congress and the President make laws, it usually is not good for anyone. I would prefer if they did nothing, rather than screw things up.

Answer 9

although alot of people call it gridlock the history seems to indicate that the US seems to be alot "smarter" when it is run by a divided government

look at the Clinton years, the economy boomed, we had record budget surpluses and they cut welfare down, all this with a democrat president and republican congress

then look at the Bush years, squandered the surplus, highest congressional pork spending in history, a war with no plan, no end and no justification. rampant cronyism that has lead to incompetence and waste and fraud unseen in in my lifetime.

unfortunately history shows that you need to have a strong opposition party otherwise the single party in charge cannot keep itself from being another pig at the troth

Answer 10

It creates a balance of power, and this is good. It checks the chief executive, and often results in compromise legislation which is moderate and that is what most Americans want.

The problem now is that Bush refuses to compromise. For example, he could have sat down with congressional leaders and they would have made a few changes in the SCHIPS legislation in his favor. But he didn't do this, because he wouldn't have gotten everything he wanted. So we are stuck with a bratty, extremist government at least until Jan 09.

Answer 11

well, with the children's health bill things rn't going so well. the democrats dont have the 2/3 congress yet and bush said they were offering a bill that they knew would be vetoed. so really, i dont think things are going so well...
thank goodness for the upcoming election!