It depends. But I would argue that what it depends on is probably different than what most people believe is important.
When I was young, I looked at this issue partially. A divided government is good (I thought) if my opposition party holds the presidency, and a united government is good if the party I prefer holds the presidency. I suspect this is a widely held view, especially among better educated voters. But now I think this is wrong.
I was of the opinion that the deciding factor is not “which party holds the presidency”, rather the positive outcome depends on the answer to this question:
Is this an era of good governance, or an era of relatively bad governance?
If we are working in an era where governments are making useful reforms, such as deregulation, privatisation, free trade, fiscal responsibility and tax reform, then a powerful central government can (and I stress) be a good thing. If we are working in an era of socialism and nationalism, too much government power is usually a bad thing.
Because most of the readers of this blog live in the US, I will not use an American example to make this point. It is very difficult to look beyond our political views. Instead, I’m going to ask you to look across the pond and think about recent British history.
They have had three longest periods of single-party rule. The Conservatives ruled from 1979-1997, then Labor from 1997-2010, then the Conservatives again until last year’s election. What do we notice about these times?
1. Governments often do best in their early stages. They come into office with a plan to correct the failures of previous administrations, and often do some useful things during the first term of their administration. Then they run out of gas, and the quality of policymaking deteriorates.
2. Governments tend to be better at making policy when the global zeitgeist is moving in the “neoliberal” direction (say until 2007), and less effective at making policy when the world is going in the wrong direction.
I will not tell people how to vote, and in a presidential year he will not know for sure whether his vote will result in a united or divided government. (In the midterm elections, voters know.) But one thing to consider is whether we are in an era of good governance or bad governance. Is the political zeitgeist moving in the direction of limited budgets and supply-side reforms, or is it moving in the other direction? How much trust is there in the policy making process of today’s America?
One final point. I will not deny that a divided government is more often good than bad. That depends a lot on the question of how much “struggle” you like. My own opinion is somewhat anti-government activists, so my bias is towards a divided government. In this post, I try to explain when each result comparatively most importantly, not which is best in an absolute sense. If I am in favor of government activists, I may lean towards the idea that a unified government is generally best. However, I think people tend to underestimate the importance of the zeitgeist, the importance of whether we are in an era of good governance, or an era of bad governance.
Source link