In Praise of Divided Government

It's a cliché that the party who holds the White House deplores divided government, while the party out of power likes it very much. The principal objection to divided government is that quick, bold, necessary actions are stymied. To this humble observer that's a feature, not a bug.

When the Democrats had control of Congress and the White House from 2008 to 2010, they passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote. When the Republicans were similarly situated in 2003 to 2006 and part of 2001, they passed the so-called Bush tax cuts, arguably a major source of today's deficit problems. (It should be noted that Democrats were roughly split on the Patriot Act and Iraq War resolutions, so it's a reasonable supposition that even if congressional Democrats had slim control, George W. Bush would have gotten his legislation through, thanks to solid Republican support.)

Now we are seeing another advantage of divided government: congressional hearings on possible Administration malfeasance. Yes, investigations into the current raft of scandals are interfering with Executive Branch operations, and yes, there is grandstanding and partisan obstructionism going on, but there are also important issues at stake concerning the free flow of information prior to a Presidential election (the time when the people have the most say in their government) and the abuse of the enormous powers of the Internal Revenue Service, the agency that has information on everyone and where everyone is presumed guilty, not innocent.

I'd like to see something get done this year on immigration reform and tax simplification, but if inaction is the price we pay for divided government, so be it. © 2013 Stephen Yuen
[Update - 5/31: Ann Althouse on the 2014 elections: "Regardless of how directly Obama is implicated and how much any given voter wants to blame Obama, the scandals make a strong argument for opposite-party control of Congress."]

The Sensibility of House Republicans

No, really, House Republicans may be acting sensibly:

House Republicans say they will not overreach on probing the Obama administration, having learned lessons from investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton administration. [snip]

Impeachment is not something that has been bandied about around the House GOP leadership table, according to GOP leadership aides and a House Republican member who spoke on background.

Unless there is solid proof of high crimes and misdemeanors (using the people's definition, not lawyers' understanding) by the President, House Republicans should quash all mention of the I-word. Mr. Obama is still popular and could become an object of sympathy if there were a rush to start impeachment proceedings.

It's difficult to imagine that he would ever be as unpopular as his predecessor, but Mr. Obama may well descend to that level after three and a half more years of scandal and ineffectiveness, not to mention being the butt of late-night humor.

Thursday's Jay Leno:

This week will mark the 37th time House Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare. If Republicans really want to do away with Obamacare they should endorse it as a "conservative non-profit" and let the IRS take it down!

A lot of critics are now comparing President Obama to President Nixon. The good news for Obama: at least he's no longer being compared to President Carter!

Six Months Later

A few days after President Obama's re-election your humble observer opined:

Now that the election's over we are likely, finally, to learn the truth about:

Benghazi

Obamacare's costs

End-of-year defense layoffs

FEMA's before-and-after performance on Hurricane Sandy

Unemployment statistics

Whether General Motors is really healthy

What the President meant when he said he would be "flexible" on missile defense

Six months later only Benghazi and Obamacare are still deemed to be important topics, but two are enough to serve the President's opponents; prolonged national conversations on either are unlikely to be helpful to the Administration's goals. A scandal that has seemingly come out of nowhere--also unhelpful, to say the least--is the IRS' targeting of "Tea Party" and "patriot" groups (actions suspected by conservatives over a year ago but ignored by the mainstream media).

Unfortunately for the President, none of the current set of problems can credibly be laid at the feet of obstinate Republicans or the Bush Administration. Welcome to your second term, Mr. President.

Incineration Over Incarceration

Quoth the NY Times:

Mr. Obama relies on his predecessor’s aggressive approach in one area to avoid Mr. Bush’s even more aggressive approach in others. By emphasizing drone strikes, Mr. Obama need not bother with the tricky issues of detention and interrogation because terrorists tracked down on his watch are generally incinerated from the sky, not captured and questioned.

To summarize the Times' world view,

Obama ===> drones ===> terrorists "incinerated from the sky" ===> "aggressive approach"

Bush ===> detention and interrogation ===> "more aggressive approach"

The terrorists are surely grateful that President Obama has a softer policy than cowboy George Bush--wouldn't you prefer incineration over incarceration, dear reader?