Obama Afghanistan Speech - Short Version

Short Version:

We won.

We are coming home.

BTW, we killed Bin Laden.

The Dividist is good with that.

Slightly Less Short Version:

We were right to surge the troops. We killed Bin Laden. We are declaring a modest victory. We also killed Bin Laden. We are bringing the troops home too slowly to satisfy the left wing and too quickly to satisfy the right wing. However, We did kill Bin Laden. I hope there is actually a centrist electorate out there. Did I mention that we killed Bin Laden?

Long version linked here.

More commentary from Memeorandum.

EDIT: Removed gratuitous, excessive, experimental memorandulingus link bait. It didn't work.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Shocking CNBC Poll Result - 4% still think Ben Bernanke is doing a good job.

CNBC Street Poll Result

In anticipation of the Fed Open Market Committee meeting, CNBC used their daily "Squawk On the Street" poll to offer viewers a Confidence/ No Confidence vote on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. With almost 20,000 votes cast, 96% voted "No Confidence". Now this is an unscientific poll - and - the wording begs the question why anyone, least of all the Fed Chairman, should be considered uniquely responsible for "handling the economy", but - scientific or not - the numbers are mind-blowing. Who would believe these results? I mean... really... who are those 4% of the respondents who think Bernanke is doing a good job???

Fed Chief Ben Bernanke held his second press conference and reinforced why the 96% have the opinion that they do. The headline of this AP story says it all:

Economic Trouble Puzzles Fed Chief, Too
"The economy's continuing struggles aren't just confounding ordinary Americans. They've also stumped the head of the Federal Reserve. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year. "We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought."

Hard to understand why Bernanke would seem confused about the economy that he is "handling". After all, this was the same guy who said in June, 2007:

".. at this point, the troubles in the subprime sector seem unlikely to seriously spill over to the broader economy or the financial system."

In any case, we can rest assured that when it is time to implement an exit strategy for unwinding the most accommodating monetary policy in the history of the United States with an unprecedented currency annihilating hyper-inflation potential, Ben Bernanke is (as he said in a 60 Minutes interview last December) "100% certain" that he can raise rates in time to keep inflation under control.

Sleep well my fellow Americans. The economy is in good hands.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Obama Takes Imperial Presidency Beyond Bush/Cheney's Wildest Dreams

Although I did not vote for Obama, I hoped he would live up to his campaign rhetoric and roll back some of the worst excesses of the expansive Bush/Cheney re-definition of the Unitary Executive. After the election I looked forward to the restoration of some of the civil liberties lost in the nation's post 9/11 fervor for an illusory level of security from terrorism and a re-balancing of the constitutional checks on the war-making authority of the executive branch. These hopes were dashed as time and again the Obama administration embraced and defended every single aspect of the Bush/Cheney power grab.

Now, having committed U.S. military forces and weaponry to striking military targets in the Libyan not-a-war, the President has chosen to ignore the legal advice of the top lawyers in the Pentagon and Justice department - claiming his actions are exempt from the War Powers Resolution:

"Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20. But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged."

We are well on our way to spending over a billion dollars deploying carrier attack groups and launching air strikes and cruise missile bombardments of military targets in a foreign country, yet our President is making the Orwellian claim that this action does not yet meet the definition of "hostilities".

This is what it has come to - We now have a President who is asserting that it is completely within his authority to commit our military resources to strikes against another country, and never be required to request the authority of Congress. This is claim of executive war power far beyond anything that was ever asserted in the Bush/Cheney administration. Regardless of whether you support our actions in Libya, all Americans should be concerned and outraged by this claim. It is nothing less than a subversion of the law and the Constitution.

Sometimes, when a politician is criticized by both the right and left for a compromise policy decision, they will justifiably point to the criticism as a validation of a centrist policy. This is not such a case, as the President has staked out a war-making claim somewhere to the right of anything ever asserted by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Partisan hypocrisy can be easily seen in both Republicans and Democrats criticizing Obama while defending Bush or vice versa. The charges of hypocrisy are correct but irrelevant. The policy and administration claims are wrong and dangerous. It is important to understand the serious charges being levied from both wings of the political spectrum.

Criticism from the right:

Obama is flouting the War Powers Resolution
John Yoo & Robert Delahunty
"When an administration speaks to serious legal and constitutional issues, most of all perhaps in the national security area, it should not be such a spendthrift of its limited capital. And indeed, the failing here is a signature trait of this administration. Obama has an unhappy knack of making exactly the wrong kind of compromises. In this case, he might have made a robust and plausible claim that the WPR is unconstitutional. Alternatively, he might have read the statute fairly and followed it as written. Instead he is clearly flouting the law — but claiming that he isn’t. His performance here mirrors everything that has been wrong with his entire adventure in Libya. Obama’s attack has been too feeble to bring down Gaddafi, but big enough to discredit us for trying and failing; too wrapped up in U.N. legalities, but too little concern over national interests."

Criticism from the left:

Obama rejects top lawyers' legal views on Libya
Glenn Greenwald
"It should go without saying that even if the GOP had refused to support the war, that would not remotely be an excuse for violating the law and waging it without Congressional approval. Obviously, the law (and the Constitution) does not require Congressional approval for wars only where Congress favors the wars, but in all instances (it should also go without saying that a belief in the morality of this war is not an excuse for waging it illegally, any more than Bush followers' claims that warrantless eavesdropping and torture were beneficial excused their illegality). All that aside, what is undeniable is that Obama could have easily obtained Congressional approval for this war -- just as Bush could have for his warrantless eavesdropping program -- but consciously chose not to, even to the point of acting contrary to his own lawyers' conclusions about what is illegal. Other than the same hubris -- and a desire to establish his power to act without constraints -- it's very hard to see what motivated this behavior. Whatever the motives are, it's clear that he's waging an illegal war, as his own Attorney General, OLC Chief and DoD General Counsel have told him."

When an administration policy is criticized from the right, left, and academia as an illegal action, usurpation of congressional authority, and an erosion of constitutional checks and balances, it does not mean that the administration is striking a good compromise between the right and left.

In this case it means that U.S. participation in the hostilities in Libya are being conducted as an illegal action, usurpation of congressional authority, and an erosion of constitutional checks and balances.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

NY Times offers two cheers for divided government.

The graphic is a little forced, but you've got to hand it to Peter Baker in the NY Times - he gets it. Our federal government is not dysfunctional. It works this way for the simple reason that this is exactly how it was designed and intended to work:

Hip, Hip — if Not Hooray — for a Standstill NationBy PETER BAKER

"Is this any way to run a country? As it happens, yes. Ideal it is not. Inspiring, hardly at all. But the fractious, backbiting, finger-pointing, polarizing, partisan, kick-the-can-down-the-road brinkmanship of Washington politics these days is, let’s face it, the reality of American governance in the modern era. For all the hand-wringing about how the system is broken, this is the system as it was designed and is now adapted for the digital age. All the high-minded vows to put politics aside for the greater good ignore the fact that the system is built on politics, with the idea that politics, however ugly, eventually can produce a greater good, however imperfect... 

Moreover, it’s useful to remember that the founders devised the system to be difficult, dividing power between states and the federal government, then further dividing the federal government into three branches, then further dividing the legislative branch into two houses. The idea, James Madison wrote, was to keep factions from gaining too much power, presuming that “a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.”

And to be sure, gridlock is in the eye of the beholder. For those whose ox would get gored — for instance, those adamantly opposed to tax increases or to cuts in entitlement benefits — a little stalemate may not seem like a bad thing if it prevents what they consider a worse outcome. One person’s obstructionism is another’s principled opposition."

The Dividist is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance reading something this spot-on in the Times. The Dividist needs to sit down for a spell. The Dividist does not recall reading anything in the Times casting divided government in quite so favorable a light at any time prior to the 2010 election. You don't suppose the fact that avoiding one party rule in 2010 meant voting Republican and avoiding one party rule in 2012 means voting to re-elect President Obama has anything to do with it - do you? Nah. Certainly not.

In any case - the read is well worth consuming one of your 20 free NYT articles in June.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Keepin' it real with divided government.

Yeah, I've been a bit inattentive to politics and neglectful of the ol' blog over the last few weeks. This seems to happen whenever I find myself in close proximity of water and fishing gear. Time for my semi-annual resolution to pick up the pace and promise briefer, more succinct, on-topic posts on a more predictable and timely basis. Really. I mean it this time.

I did miss a few gems while drowning worms in the U.P. Among them a call for common sense from Tom Clark opining at CNN:

Get real about divided government.
"It is time that the hyper-partisans on both sides of the political aisle recognize the realities of the choice the voters have made. Having thrown the Republicans out of office in 2006 and 2008, they did not vote to embrace an agenda they had rejected in 2010. Instead they voted to balance government. Single-party rule in Washington failed for voters, but divided government doesn't have to meet the same fate. By recognizing the political realities of divided government and by working together we can make Washington work...

We know that we will be forced to raise the debt ceiling, but we also know that we cannot continue to spend money we simply do not have. The debt ceiling vote should give serious people on both sides of the ideological divide an opportunity to show that they understand the urgency of this problem. We can and should pass a debt ceiling increase that begins to cut spending, rather than simply writing more blank checks for Washington.

Additionally, the Simpson-Bowles commission provides an important bipartisan framework for tacking the growing problem of deficit spending. While not a panacea, the Simpson-Bowles commission does represent an important first step."

According to CNN, Tom is the "CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a nonprofit organization of centrists in the GOP". Yeah, I had no idea such an organization existed either. I suspect that a meeting of "centrists in the GOP" is every bit as lonely as a meeting of "centrists in the Democratic Party". I just suspect there is not much of a there there. No matter. The point is that centrist policies do not emerge from single party control of the government, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge.

We get centrist policies when we have divided government. Not because divided government ushers in an era of political civility and and bipartisan cooperation. Quite the contrary. We get centrist policies in a divided government because nothing else can get over the partisan divide. If legislation is not sufficiently centrist to draw bipartisan support, nothing passes. Full stop. I'm good with that.

No legislation is better than bad legislation [See single party legislative abominations Porkulus and Obamacare - both passed on pure partisan votes]. This does not mean that centrist legislation passed in a divided government is always good legislation. Far from it. But you can rely on single party partisan legislation to almost always be bad. And when something does need to pass - like raising the debt ceiling - it will. But only after the usual Kabuki theater and partisan brinksmanship. As it must be to ensure both sides of the non-centrist aisle are equally unhappy.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

On China by Henry Kissinger - Review

One would be hard pressed to point to any relationship between two countries that will have greater global impact over the coming decades than the relationship between the United States and China. We would be equally hard pressed to find a better guide to understanding and explaining the historical foundation, current status and future prospects of that intricate, evolving and potentially brittle relationship than Henry Kissinger.

Intellectual, academic, author, consultant to private and public leaders in both countries, and most significantly, as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford, Kissinger was arguably the primary actor whose performance on the international stage shaped the current state of Sino-American relations.

The name of Henry Kissinger's new book is "On China". A more accurate title might be "On Sino - American Relations - A Handbook for US and Chinese Diplomats and Leaders".

In the preface and prologue Kissinger is explicit about his intentions:

"This book is an effort... to explain the conceptual way the Chinese think about problems of peace and war and international order, and its relation to the more pragmatic, case-by-case American approach... American exceptionalism is missionary... Chinese exceptionalism is cultural... A primary focus of this book is the interaction between Chinese and American leaders since the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949."

Kissinger hits the mark. It is well written in an easily accessible style that does not require prerequisite knowledge of Chinese history or culture. Yet by simple virtue of its 530 page length, breadth and depth, the book requires a reader to make a commitment and bring a strong desire to understand the historic and cultural foundation on which current Sino-American relations are built.

It is only in the last chapter and epilogue that Kissinger explains why it is vitally important for Americans (and Chinese) to make the effort to understand the cultural and psychological differences in our respective approaches to foreign relations. These differences have in the past and may again in the future lead to misunderstandings, distrust, unintended consequences and tragedy.

I suggest that anyone wondering whether to commit to the effort required by this tome to read the epilogue first. It doesn't give anything away, but it does raise the stakes and correctly frames the context needed to appreciate the rest of the book. I'll revisit the epilogue later in the review.

"On China" is organized chronologically, beginning with the early history of China and ending with a look into her immediate future. Although it is structured as a historical timeline, it is not a conventional history nor does it pretend to be comprehensive. The history is offered as a framework for understanding the roots of the Chinese world view and (if we accept Kissinger's premise) as the keys to unlocking and understanding contemporary Chinese diplomatic approaches to managing US relations.

Kissinger cites ancient Chinese texts and thinkers like Sun-Tzu and Confucius to compare and contrast American and Chinese approaches to international diplomacy. Throughout the arc of post revolutionary Chinese history, Kissinger repeatedly applies these ancient texts and principles to explain the contemporaneous Chinese attitudes and actions. In this manner he illustrates recent historic and current events including the Korean War, the Mao/Nixon/Kissinger initiatives to restore relations, two Vietnam wars and even the current currency/trade negotiations.

Here I'll offer two of many examples:

In Chapter 1 - The Singularity of China Kissinger invokes a 14th Century Chinese novel:

"The famous opening of "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms", a fourteenth-century epic novel... evokes this continuous rhythm: "The empire long divided, must unite; long united must divide, thus it has eve been." Each period of disunity was viewed as an aberration... The fundamental precepts of Chinese culture endured, test by the strain of periodic calamity."

Having established this cultural perspective early in the book, Kissinger invites us to consider the outlook of contemporary Chinese leadership as still embracing this perspective. The rapid rise of contemporary China is thus considered by their leadership as simply a return to the natural order of things. Viewed through this prism, the relatively short multi-century period of foreign imperialism, civil war, disunity, and revolution becomes just another instance of a "temporary aberration". It is instructive to note that the time-frame of this most recent "temporary aberration" in the long arc of Chinese history is roughly comparable to the period of time comprising the entire history of the United States.

Then in Chapter 8 - The Road to Reconciliation Kissinger recounts Chinese strategists advising Chairman Mao by relying on lessons from the same 14th century novel as a basis for reopening relations with the US in the face of Sino-Soviet border skirmishes:

"Ye Jianying proposed a far older precedent from China's own Three Kingdoms period, when following the collapse of the Han Dynasty, the empire split into three state striving for dominance. The states' contests were recounted in a fourteenth-century epic novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, then banned in China. Ye cited the strategy pursued by one of its central characters as a template:'We can consult the example of Zhuge Liang's strategic guiding principle, where the three states of Wei, Shu, and Wu confronted each other. Ally with Wu in the east to oppose Wei in the north.'... The marshals went on to describe potential relations with the U.S. as a strategic asset."

Still in Chapter 1 - Kissinger explains the concept of "Shi" from the 2,000 year old writings of Sun Tzu:

"Hence the task of a strategist is less to analyze a particular situation than to determine its relationship to the context in which it occurs... The strategist must capture the direction of that evolution and make it serve his ends. Sun Tzu uses the word "shi" for that quality , a concept with no direct Western counterpart. In the military context, shi connotes the strategic thread and "potential energy" of a developing situation... To Sun Tzu, the strategist mastering shi is akin to water flowing downhill, automatically find the swiftest and easiest course... The Art of War articulates a doctrine less of territorial conquest than of psychological dominance; it was the way North Vietnam fought America."

Then in Chapter 18 - The New Millennium Kissinger show the concept of "Shi" being applied by current Chinese leadership to current events:

"The cultivation of harmony did not preclude the pursuit of strategic advantage. At a July 2009 conference of Chinese diplomats, Hu Jianto delivered a major speech assessing the new trends. He affirmed the first twenty years of the twenty-first century were still a "strategic opportunity period" for China. But in the wake of the financial crisis and other seismic shifts, Hu suggested that the shi was now in flux... If China guarded against potential pitfalls and managed its affairs diligently, the period of upheaval might be turned to its advantage."

Reading this section I cannot help but wonder at the complacency with which our current financial leadership (Fed Chairman Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Geithner) trivialize the financial control over our dollar and economy that we have ceded to China as a primary lender and holder of trillions of dollars our national debt. Nothing in Kissinger's book suggests that China will hesitate to use that leverage, even if it causes damage to their own economy, if they believe it necessary to protect their interest or simply gain advantage against the US in the years to come. Which, to my mind, makes it inevitable that it will indeed be used. But I digress.

Throughout On China Kissinger proceeds in this manner. First he outlines ancient texts including Confucian thoughts, Sun Tzu's Art of War, Ming Dynasty strategies for "using barbarians to check barbarians ", Han Dynasty tactics to use "five baits" to manage barbarians [foreigners], the game of "surrounding pieces" known as "Wei Qi" or "Go", and the pervasive perception afforded by millennia of Chinese cultural exceptionalism. Then he shows how these ideas and attitudes have been in the recent past and continue now to be practically applied by Chinese leadership to international relations in the modern era.

Kissinger concludes with a warning. The failure to understand the differences in strategy and tactics applied by China and the US in international relations can lead to misunderstandings with tragic consequences. In chapters 4 and 5, he contends this is exactly what happened in Korea:

"In China's conflicts with both the United States and the Soviet Union, Mao and his top associates conceived of the threat in them of a wei qi concept - that of preventing strategic encirclement. It was in precisely these most traditional aspects that the superpowers had the most difficulty comprehending Mao's strategic moves... Mao was determined to prevent encirclement by any power or combination of powers,regardless of ideology, that he perceived as securing too many wei qi "stones" surrounding China, by disrupting their calculations. This was the catalyst that led China into the Korean War..."

" ... When the Chinese view of preemption encounters the Western concept of deterrence, a vicious circle can result: acts conceived as defensive in China may be treated as aggressive by the outside world; deterrent moves by the West may be interpreted in China as encirclement. The United States and China wrested with this dilemma repeatedly during the Cold War; to some extent they have not found a way to transcend it."

Which brings us to the epilogue - where Kissinger turns his eyes from looking back to looking forward and applying the lessons learned. The epilogue may be the rasion d'etre for the book. Here Kissinger asks the question "Will History Repeat Itself?" - clearly fearing it might, and perhaps hoping his book points to a way of avoiding the future he fears.

The history that Kissinger hopes to avoid is not the recent Sino-American history that consumes his attention in the first 500 pages. Instead he invokes pre-World War I Europe where an emerging unified Germany challenged the preeminence of the dominant superpower of the age - the United Kingdom. He cites the "Crowe Memorandum" written in 1907 by a senior official in the British Foreign Office. In this memorandum (characterized by Kissinger as "brilliant") Crowe argues that future conflict is inherent in the relationship of the two powers.

Crowe concluded that it made no difference what goal Germany avowed. Whichever course Germany was pursuing, "Germany would clearly be wise to build as powerful a navy as she can afford." And once Germany achieved naval supremacy, Crowe assessed, this in itself - regardless of German intentions - would be an objective threat to Britain and "incompatible with the existence of the British Empire."

History would seem to judge him prescient. The obvious comparison is to a rising China building as powerful a military and economy as it can, and begs the question whether China similarly becomes an objective threat to the United States - "regardless of intentions".

Perhaps Kissinger sees this book as his own modern day "Crowe Memorandum". By calling attention to the potential dangers inherent in the relationship, he hopes to head off a similar catastrophic conflict. Certainly he finishes with suggestions to avoid such a fate, and strikes a hopeful (or wishful) note:

"I am aware that the cultural, historic, and strategic gaps in perception that I have described will pose formidable challenges for even the best intentioned and most far-sighted leadership on both sides. On the other had, were history confided the mechanical repetition of the past, no transformation would ever have occurred. Every great achievement was a vision before it became a reality. In that sense, it arose from commitment, not resignation to the inevitable."

Growing up in the shadow of the Vietnam war, I have mixed feelings about Henry Kissinger and in particular the role he played in the Nixon and Ford administrations. That said, I judge this book a success by the standards he set out in the preface, as well as by my own lofty expectations.

Reading it has changed the way I look at China, our historical relationship, and the issues confronting us today and in the future.

Recommended.

Thanks to Trish and TLC Book Tours for the opportunity to read the book and write this review. This is my second review for TLC (first here) and I received a free copy of On China (without preconditions on content) to write this review.

Check out the tour home page linked here. I was a little late, but made a point of not reading any blog or mainstream media reviews prior to completing this work. I am looking forward to comparing notes with other "On China" Virtual Tour Calendar and Reviews linked here:

Wednesday, May 11th: Man of La Book

Thursday, May 12th: Mark’s China Blog

Tuesday, May 17th: Inside-Out China

Wednesday, May 18th: Lisa Graas

Sunday, May 22nd: Rhapsody In Books

Tuesday, May 24th: Bookworm’s Dinner

Wednesday, May 25th: Pacific Rim Shots

Thursday, May 26th: Asia Unbound

Monday, May 30th: Hidden Harmonies China Blog

Tuesday, May 31st: Wordsmithonia

Wednesday, June 1st: Lit and Life

Thursday, June 2nd: ChinaGeeks

Wednesday, June 8th: Power and Control

Thursday, June 9th: Marathon Pundit

Friday, June 10th: Rundpinne

Monday, June 13th: Booker Rising

Friday, June 17th: Divided We Stand United We Fall

EDITS & UPDATES: - Fixing typos as I find them, and adding links to other reviews as they are completed.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Carnival of Divided Government Novem et Quadrâgintâ (XLIX) Special Dead Terrorist Ball Spiking Edition

Welcome to the 49th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government - Special Dead Terrorist Edition.

Press Secretary James Carney explained the administration position - "I don't expect you'll hear the president spiking the ball and gloating when he speaks to troops returning from Afghanistan.". What we did hear the President say in the Steve Kroft interview was this:

"Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

Exactly so. Precisely the right posture. Just the right tone. The President was also right to not release the photograph of a dead Osama Bin Laden sans skull and adorned with his own brain matter. Reveling in the death of anyone, even a terrorist, is not seemly, not appropriate, and not necessary for the President or anyone in the United States government. After all, as bloggers, that's our job.

Truth be told, the Dividist is just relieved that across ten years, across two administrations, across One Party Republican Rule, a Divided Government, One Party Democratic Rule and another Divided Government, we as a country and a government managed to maintain our resolve and do exactly what we said we would do. President Bush set the ball in motion and promised justice. President Obama kept the the ball rolling and delivered on that promise. It's all good.

Time to check in on our happily divided government and dance a jig or two on Osama's virtual grave.

Carnival of Divided Government

As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the Carnival of Divided Government Novem et Quadrâgintâ (XLIX) - Special Spiking The Ball While Dancing in the End zone Dead Terrorist Edition, as in all of the CODGOV editions, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in The Dividist reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions. Among the on-topic posts, essays and articles we choose our top ten favorites for commentary and consideration. We hope you enjoy these selections, and having finished celebrating in the end-zone, taken the time to meditate on the wisdom of Mark Twain: "I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."

We begin with Kendrick MacDowell blogging at The Prince and The Little Prince. Kendrick is completely dumbfounded by the variety of contradictory explanations of the Osama raid, and comes up with an entirely new notion of divided government , invoking a government divided between the competent and the clowns while musing "On the blizzard of Osama bin Laden death narratives":

" Was this really a mission planned with stupendous Navy SEAL excellence up to — and not a moment after — the death of Osama bin Laden? Divided government? Were the Navy SEALS in charge of getting Osama bin Laden, and the clowns in charge of everything that happened thereafter? Is it really possible that our highest levels of federal government still haven’t grasped the importance of aftermath planning? Doh! [Head bonk.] As I said, take some comfort in incompetence. It means, at a minimum, really scary smart people are not designing sinister manipulations of the American people. The folks in power are pretty much just like us.”

Intriguing and amusing but not helpful to those of us on a mission proselytizing a voting heuristic based on a more conventional definition of divided government. The Dividist thinks that Kendrick is grasping for Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." or the more succinct Bernard Ingham English version "Cock-up before conspiracy".

On to a selection of somewhat more conventional uses of the term and concept of Divided Government...

Taegon Goddard takes note of Kevin Bogardus and Rachel Leven reporting at The Hill on yet another good reason why we can all appreciate a properly functioning divided federal government in "Divided Government hits K Street":

"Divided government hasn’t been too great for K Street. On Wednesday, lobby firms began to disclose their first quarterly revenue for 2011 as required under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). Records show that most firms’ earnings either flat-lined or fell off when compared to 2010’s first quarter. One reason for the decline is that Capitol Hill has not been the legislative factory it was when Democrats controlled both chambers."

Not that we needed any additional reasons, but this one is particularly satisfying.

Sheila Kennedy is looking at the recently installed One Party Republican Rule in the Indiana Statehouse and wonders "Where is Divided Government When You Need It?":

"I used to argue with friends who deliberately voted for divided government. It didn’t seem logical to install a system where little would get done–where agendas could easily be blocked. A vote for divided government was a vote for gridlock rather than action. Gridlock has never looked so alluring. For the first time in several years, the Republicans hold all the power in Indiana–they have a majority of the House and the Senate, and they have the Governor’s office. And they are using their unconstrained power with a vengeance. There’s been the stuff we all expected: we’ve seen the redistricting maps, for example, and as we all know, had the Democrats held all the power, the maps would have been no less politically motivated. But they haven’t stopped there, and some of the shenanigans have been truly outrageous...It’s often said we get the government we deserve. If that’s true, we the people have been very, very bad."

Two things of note in Professor Kennedy's lament. First, the Dividist is always gratified to see an acknowledgement that there are others who deliberately cast their vote for divided government. It is further gratifying to note that the Professor will be arguing less strenuously in the future with my fellow dividists. It also never fails to amuse when partisans recognize the virtues of divided government only when their party of preference is excluded from the seat of power. She has one good point though - when voters fail to restrain their elected leaders by assuring power is shared between the parties, they get the government they deserve. It cuts both ways.

Caitlin of LiveCitizen rips one of the Dividist's early graphics and asks the question "Do You Approve of Divided Government?":

"How do you feel about the clear division of party lines in the Republican led Congress and the Democrat led Senate? How do you rate the work they have done so far? Do you approve a divided government, where all the work being done is opposing one another instead on helping the country move forward?"

Heh. You betcha. The Dividist thinks that Caitlin would benefit from a little deeper appreciation of exactly how our constitutionally divided government was designed and was intended to work by the founders. Or maybe any appreciation at all. Perhaps a class in American history would help. Finally, Caitlin should consider that policies "helping the country move forward" according to Caitlin may very well be policies "helping the country move backward" according to the Dividist. Settling those policy differences by opposing one other in a divided government is exactly how our government is supposed to work.

George Washington is cross-posting at Zero Hedge and observing that "Obama Gives Up the Fake "Hope and Change" Act ... And Adopts the Neocon FEAR Playbook". A good post, but Quatum Nucleonics' comment is the thing:

"Anyone who bought into the "hope and change" marketing pitch was a kool-aid chuging moron. It was pretty obvious who Obama was before the election. McCain wasn't much better, but a divided government might have at least given us a bit less debt and a lot less ObamaCare."

True. And a divided government in 2002 and/or 2004 might have also given us a bit less debt and a lot less war. As George Washington wonders in the post itself -

"Are we going go back from koolaid drinkers of false hope to mindless terrorized sheep? Or are we going to stand up as brave, independent, thinking people and demand real change?"

The Dividist reminds both George and Quantum that a few independent thinking people voting to keep the government divided by voting to re-elect Obama in 2012 can at keep our ship of state from crashing into the partisan rocks on either the starboard or the port.

GoldmanUSA is thinking globally but blogging locally at Blue Virginia, and psychoanalyzing the "The Obama-Allen Voter vs. the McDonnell-Kaine voter":

"Under this explanation, these Obama-Allen voters are voting for the President but in reality they don't really support his policies. Thus, they are voting for Allen as a way of making sure Obama can't enact what the voter feels is bad policy. In today's parlance, it is a voter who wants divided government so each side is blocked... Net, net: right now, the Obama-Allen voter, or perhaps more accurately the "Obama-I probably need to make sure the Senate doesn't back Obama's policies" voter, is the margin of victory in the Kaine-Allen race. "

A good analysis. Even if GoldmanUS is not the first to connect those particular dots:

"Sweet Virginia" - Rolling Stones

Wadin' through the waste stormy winter,
And there's not a friend to help you through.
Tryin' to stop the waves behind your eyeballs,
Drop your reds, drop your greens and blues.

But come on, come on down Sweet Virginia,
Come on, come on down, I beg of you.
Come on, come on down, you got it in you.
Got to scrape that shit right off you shoes.

Andrew Taylor and Stephen Ohlemacher writing at Bloomberg Businessweek offer a civics lesson on how compromise takes place in a divided government, explaining how a "Group of 6 senators hones plan tro cut US deficits":

"The six have met in private for several months, even as House Republicans and Obama developed more partisan plans that have little chance of being enacted into law because of Washington's divided government... The senators' work is rooted in a simple political reality: Getting anything actually passed into law given the present balance of power in Washington requires both Democrats and Republicans to embrace proposals that make each uncomfortable. An approach that leaves politically challenging topics off the table simply won't make a dent in deficits averaging $1 trillion a year or so over the upcoming decade."

It is pretty simple really. Divided Government prevents the worst impulses of both parties from becoming law. For legislation to pass it will either be a compromise, or it will not become law. Either is better than steamrolled partisan abominations like Porkulus and Obamacare.


Bill Ferguson opines at the Macon Telegraph on this very subject, and concludes "So far, so good":

"The truth is I am not completely opposed to some combination of tax increases and spending cuts if (and this is a very big “if”) it is part of a budget plan that seriously deals with our debt situation. Realistically speaking, any deficit reduction plan that would have a chance of passing our currently divided government will need to represent a compromise between the two parties. Rich folks (as defined by the Democrats) are probably going to have to pay at least a little more in taxes and we have to come up with some way of capping entitlement spending that won’t cause the AARP to have a meltdown.I’m not sure how likely it is that we will see the two parties reach such a compromise, but it seems that a sense of urgency is at long last present in their deliberations.."

It is easy to understand. Ryan set up the right goal post, Obama erected the left goal post, the solution will be kicked in between. The only ones who will be disappointed are those who think we should kick the ball directly at the right or left goal post. Welcome to Divided Government.

Jeff Bartelli blogging at at Distant Observer, wonders "Should Congress Be Run Like Jury Duty?": posted at Distant Observer, saying, "The idea of divided government has often been cherished but that division frequently leaves out the American people. Perhaps a number of changes should be considered that would actually include the people of this country in one of those divisions." :

"Rather than a body of individuals who meet to discuss and pass legislation, the U.S. Congress is now an arena where the party bosses dictate what decisions their people can make and what legislation will be proposed or passed. This highly undemocratic means of running a nation is the outcome of the status quo and neither the republicans nor the democrats are willing to change it. Consequently, we know that this system of divided government is flawed and stands little chance of becoming effective short of a transition to a single party system. Of course, that prospect would represent the wishes, needs, and desires of an even smaller percentage of the population that the current regime. So, what can be done to fix this?

Jeff proposed the rather radical suggestion that legislators be selected by lottery, much like jury duty. Ignoring the vanishingly small probability of anything remotely like this ever being enacted into law, Jeff appears to fundamentally misunderstand why our divided government was designed by the founders to function exactly as it does.

Jeff complains that "An elected legislature has proven to be largely incapable of meeting the needs of society. Partisan bickering prevents meaningful immediate action while frequent elections prevent coherent long term plans from materializing or being maintained at the state and national levels" Of course, Jeff is simply articulating the flip side of the coin represented by Caitlin in an earlier link who has a similar complaint.

What is the likelihood that the policies"helping the country move forward" wished for so wistfully by Caitlin would comport with the "meaningful immediate action" or the "needs of society" that Jeff thinks is so obviously being blocked by divided government. While the policies that comprise these memes are obvious to Jeff and Caitlin, they may not be agreeable to each other or anyone else. This should be patently obvious to anyone.

The founders recognized the country was comprised of vastly different and competing interests that could never be reconciled into a single view of what comprises the "needs of society". So they built a government architecture that give all these interests access to power, and permanently institutionalizing the ensuing argument. If we cannot agree or compromise on our collective perception of the "needs of society" - then nothing gets passed. This is by design.

I've quoted this here before, but I'll do it again now. The concept and rationale for a constitutionally divided government cannot be explained any better than it was by the architect of our constitution - James Madison in Federalist #10:

"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and factions [special interests] in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government...

Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary...

The influence of factious leaders [special interests] may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

Partisan polarization does not start with divided government. Divided government simply assures that everyone in our deeply divided country has a seat at the table when sweeping policies are proposed. If such a policy cannot find bipartisan support, then that policy should not be enacted into law. Divided government stops it. This is as it should be.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context means - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock.

For this edition, there wasn't anything in the off-topic bin that was worthy of inclusion. Instead, we'll finish with the alternative, spike-the-ball, dancing in the end-zone, alternative "Obama Got Osama" speech:

And with that, we'll conclude this edition. Look for the next edition of The Carnival of Divided Government Quînquâgintâ (L) - Special 50th Carnival and Belated 5 Year Blogiversary Edition - sometime between now and Independence Day. Please submit your blog article at the carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Further on up the road.

"Where the road is dark
and the seed is sowed.
Where the gun is cocked
and the bullet's cold.
Where the miles are marked
in the blood and gold.
We'll meet you further on up the road."

- Bruce Springsteen - Further on up the road. - The Rising (2002)

The road was longer and darker than we thought, but we got there. As the Secretary of State put it so well: “You cannot wait us out, you cannot defeat us... justice has been served.”

Carnival of Divided Government Octô et Quadrâgintâ (XLVIII) Special Apres - Tax Day Edition

Welcome to the 48th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government - The Special Apres - Tax Day Edition. A day of joy and celebration for all patriotic Americans eager to shell over their hard earned cash to our wiser, more enlightened leadership to distribute as they see fit.

"What will my money be spent on?" the Dividist wondered as he dropped his return into the mailbox and stumbled into the bar across the street. More wars? Reloading the cruise missile arsenal? More bailouts? More"free money" 0% interest rates for banks? More quantitative easing? More bloated public sector union pensions? More subsidized solar energy fantasies? More entitlements to burden our children and grandchildren for decades to come? The Dividist patriotically hopes that all of his taxes will go to paying for interest on our massive 100% of GDP debt, as there is nothing more patriotic and responsible than helping pay for the decades of incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility of the leaders we elected. It also might keep us from further downgrades by the S&P credit agency.

For any Reader wondering about where their taxes are going, Google can help. Google sponsored a contest to help us visually understand exactly what we are paying for. The Data Viz challenge winners were announced yesterday. CNET explains:

"After receiving more than 40 entries, the Google jury has crowned its $5,000 Grand Prize winner. Created by developer Anil Kandangath, "Where Did My Tax Dollars Go?" is "information-rich but elegantly designed," said Google in its blog post. And Kandangath's creation does make it easy for any of us to see how much money goes into each area of the federal budget... The $3,000 runner-up prize went to "Every Day is Tax Day," an online clock that shows you not just how much money you spent in taxes but how many hours and minutes you worked to earn that money. Though they may not take the sting out of paying taxes, these online apps can at least answer some of the questions that befuddle most hard-working taxpayers, especially at this time of year."

The Dividist likes the finalist TaxMapper Application, as it permits easy visualization of the federal budget and spending outlays during periods of divided government as well as both Republican and Democratic single party rule since the Reagan administration. The screen shot from the top of the post is from that App.

Without further ado, time to check in on our happily divided government and see how it proposes to spend our money in 2011 and beyond.

Carnival of Divided Government

As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the The Carnival of Divided Government Octô et Quadrâgintâ (XLVIII) - Special Patriotic Tax Day Edition, as in all of the CODGOV editions, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in The Dividist reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions. Among the on-topic posts, essays and articles we choose our top ten favorites for commentary and consideration. We hope you enjoy these selections, and having paid your taxes on time, can enjoy the three-ring circus over how your money will be spent.

We begin with Boehner's Lament. Speaker of the House John Boehner is holding court from the floor of the House of Representatives, shortly before a historic vote to cut spending by $38B out of the balance of the FY 2011 federal discretionary budget - "Welcome to Divided Government":

"Is it perfect? No. I’d be the first one to admit that it’s flawed. Well, welcome to divided government. I can tell you that the negotiations that went on over the last four or five weeks. They weren’t easy, especially when you’ve got another body on the other side of this Capitol that doesn’t want to cut spending, and clearly an administration that doesn’t want to cut spending. But I’ll tell you that this is the best we could get out of divided government."

Yes, it is a drop in the bucket, but given that a cut of this scope has never been done before, the Dividist will simply lean back, nod sagely, and with a big self-satisfied grin say "It's a start." Welcome to Divided Government.

Gary Glennell Toms reports at The G-Man on The Carney Lament. Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked in a press conference to comment on the President's reaction to having the country downgraded by S&P and the diminishing likelihood of an energy policy bill being pushed through Congress. He responds with a similar civics lesson as offered by John Boehner in "White House Briefs":

MR. CARNEY: "I think that the reaction of all of us is that the assessment of the state of the U.S. economy is one we agree with... we believe the process will outperform S&P expectations on the political side of this, which, we obviously have a certain amount of experience here just in these last two-plus years in dealing with Congress, and in the last several months in dealing with a divided Congress and still getting things done. And there is great historical precedence for that to happen. When you can look and hear the competing statements from members of both parties and think there is no way these two sides are going to find common ground and come together -- and yet there is a way because the American people demand it and the American economy demands it."

MR. CARNEY: "What we have learned since the midterm elections that delivered the House of Representatives to the Republicans is that despite prognostications to the contrary, we can get big things done. We can get important things done. So this President believes very strongly that, yes, there’s a potential for serious work to be done. It’s not necessarily going to be easy. It’s going to require compromise by both sides. It’s a divided government. But that's how our system works, and he remains confident."

Not only does it work, but divided government works very very well. Particularly if you hope to see the federal government exercise some semblance of fiscal responsibility and spending restraint. Welcome to Divided Government.

William McKenzie of the Dallas Morning News tells us something that many of us already knew - "Divided Government is our friend":

"Here's one of Washington's rich ironies: Many of us may see divided government as a recipe for stalemate, but it's actually wonderful for reducing the deficit. Just look at three of the last four major deficit deals: 1990, 1997 and now this year. They happened when Democrats and Republicans split control of Washington. The exception is the pact Democrats passed in 1993, when they controlled the White House and Congress. Otherwise, deficit breakthroughs have occurred with the kind of partisan tension and high-wire acts we've seen the last few weeks. Given the threat that the inordinately large deficit and debt pose to our economy, maybe we should think of splitting tickets at the polls"

Being a born-again divided government newbie, we can cut Mr. McKenzie some slack. He has yet to learn that voting for divided government is not the same thing as splitting a ticket. It probably has not yet occurred to him that voting for divided government in 2012 will likely mean voting to re-elect Barack Obama. Should be fun to watch the learning curve. Partisans only think divided government is a good idea when the other party has all the power. Dividists think divided government is always a good idea. Welcome to Divided Government.

BoBo the Clown of The BoBo Files maintains a long-running weekly political carnival open to all political views. The Dividist appreciates the time and effort that Bobo puts into his carnival and blog, and frequently submits articles for Bobo's consideration. Bobo always prints The Dividist's submission, whether he likes them or not. Case in point - "The BoBo Carnival of Politics - April 17 Edition":

BoBo likes this.

"Dividist – great discussion. I have nothing further to add. Keep up the great work and thanks for submitting this for my followers."

BoBo does not like this.

"Uhhh…nope, not me. I do truly see the benefits of a divided government – and I see where you’re coming from – but – I can’t even fathom another 4 years of Obambi – the most incompetent President in history. I would hope there would be another Democrat contender. Hell, I would vote for Hillary over Obambi at this point. The GOP hasn’t exactly put up any good candidates right now either – of those who have at least expressed some interest in running. 2012 is going to be another bust election – it will undoubtedly come down to a lesser of two evils again – A RINO or A Socialist – neither are good for this country."

You win some. You lose some. The Dividist thinks that only 5% of the electorate voting for divided government can keep the 80%+ partisan vote in check. Welcome to Divided Government.

Brian Montopoli writing at the CBS News Political Hotsheet assesses "How good are Obama's re-election chances?":

"But midterm rebukes don't necessarily portend trouble for presidents in the following election - Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower saw their parties face serious electoral defeats two years into their presidencies and went on to victories two years later. Indeed, those midterm elections may even be a boon for Mr. Obama - Americans tend to like divided government, and with the House firmly in GOP hands, they no longer have a unified Democratic Party to vote against."

Only 5% .... Welcome to divided government.

Silverfiddle blogging at Western Hero gets the divided government ethos right while excoriating some Michigan Dems in "Michigan Democrats Busted With Counterfeit Tea":

"Our system of divided government is not natural. The arc of human history shows that power is a centripetal force, drawing all to itself. The Founders set up a system to balance off competing interests and power centers, but the centripetal force has steadily wicked away personal liberty as power naturally accretes to the center.”

And our system of constitutionally divided government is undone when one party rule undermines the checks and balances the founder's intended. Barring some serious constitutional tinkering, the best way to keep our government functioning as designed, is to not given either party all the keys. Not now. Not ever. Not even the political party you prefer. Welcome to Divided Government.

Josh Brokaw at Reason Hit & Run weighs in on the recent budget battle and notes the "Democrat Budget Strategy Lacking The Force":

"Speaker Boehner’s argument is that the short-term resolutions add more opportunities to make cuts, while notable defectors like Mike Pence (R-In.) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) want to make a stand now. The split in Democratic ranks appears to be between those who want to do nothing but cry and those who will go along with some cuts as long as certain sacred programs aren’t touched. Divided government can be a marginal improvement over the free-spending ways of an unified Congress and executive. Yet this squabbling over crumbs doesn’t mean jack squat if the only thought given entitlement reform is “consideration."

Um. A marginal improvement is still an improvement. Particularly when compared to making things an order of magnitude worse, as in the last two years of single party rule. Welcome to Divided Government.

Rebecca Costa opines in the local fishwrap, discovers the long and well established libertarian affinity for divided government and wonders "Has America become a libertarian's dream?":

"I was talking to political satirist P.J. O'Rourke when he made one of those curious remarks he's known for: "Gridlock's no problem. What really worries me is when there's consensus in Washington." I had to think about that... Looking ahead toward 2012, if party leaders are smart, they will urge Libertarians to immediately throw their support behind Barack Obama, then back every Tea Party candidate for Congress from here to kingdom come. This would ensure that infighting would continue, and as little as possible would be accomplished. On the other hand, if winners knew when to quit, there'd be no such thing as Las Vegas or doubling down. It's more likely the Libertarian Party hasn't noticed they are getting what they wanted, albeit it not the way they planned. Someone ought to tell them."

Sigh. Yeah. Well, Rebecca - a lot of us have been telling them that for a long time. Glad that you figured it out though. And welcome to the Coalition of the Divided. For the record, the complete comment we left on her post:

Heh. I cannot help but think that Ms. Costa "discovering" the libertarian affinity for divided government / gridlock is akin to the intellectual chauvinism of Columbus "discovering" America - apparently not noticing the millions of people who already live there. P.J. O'Rourke was not inventing a "curious remark". He was repeating a refrain familiar to most libertarians and/or the libertarian leaning. William Niskanen - former chairman of the Cato Institute - wrote an article entitled "A case for Divided Government" in 2003. In every election since then, articles at Cato, Reason, and other libertarian blogs and outlets have made the case for divided government regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats were currently in control. I myself have advocated a divided government voting heuristic for the last five years on my blog.

Although most people use the terms gridlock and divided government interchangeably (including P.J. and myself), it is not true that one necessarily is the result of the other. The definitive work on this question is Yale Professor David Mayhew's "Divided We Govern". In that work he exhaustively documents that there is no correlation between legislative productivity and periods of divided government or single party rule in the modern era. None. You can have periods of legislative gridlock or profusion in both divided and unified governments.

However, for some of us who seek a federal government that is - limited in scope, provides for common defense, protects and respects individual rights, spends and taxes in a fiscally responsible manner, provides effective oversight of all elected and appointed executives and representatives, legislates carefully and slowly, and passes only laws that are tempered in the fire of partisan debate - a vote for divided government is a much more effective means to that end, than wasting a vote on an impotent 3rd party.

At least 80% of the electorate vote predictably as hard-core partisans, split roughly down the middle, regardless of what they call themselves. Cato Institute studies shows that there is a 12% swing vote that consider themselves civil and social liberals but fiscal conservatives. If half of that block votes consistently for divided government, it is enough to swing our otherwise evenly balanced polarized electorate to keep the government divided.

It is the smartest vote that libertarians and true independents can cast.

Welcome to Divided Government, Rebecca.

The National Institute of Health Policy is "advancing health policy dialogue" by asking answering "Is Divided Government the Answer to a Polarized America?":

" Even the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear reactor disaster in Japan set off a wave of right wing radio critique of Obama’s emergency preparedness. So divided government is polarization. And yet, it looks more likely every day that Americans and independent voters especially, will choose to re-elect the president and give us a Republican House and Senate. You have to assume that the problems we face as a country can yield to bipartisan solutions, or that elections actually render mandates on the specifics of spending, taxes, and entitlements. "

Yes, obviously divided government is polarization. Because we all remember those halcyon days of unpolarized non-partisan unity of purpose that we all enjoyed during the last two years of One Party Democratic Rule under Barack Obama with a $1 trillion dollar (fully loaded) partisan stimulus bill steamrolled over the opposition and the $1 trillion dollar partisan Obamacare bill steamrolled over the opposition or the six years of One Party Republican Rule under George W. Bush and a war in Iraq steamrolled over everyone.

Partisan polarization does not start with divided government. Divided government simply assures that everyone in our deeply divided country has a seat at the table when sweeping policies are proposed. If a policy cannot find bipartisan support, then that policy should not be enacted into law. Divided government can help prevent bad policy from becoming law. Welcome to Divided Government.

As long as the Dividist is patting himself on the back, a hat tip to the Dividist for noting Peter Wehner's excellent observation in Commentary - "The Aesthetics of Divided Government":

"The showdown that almost lead to a shutdown is the aesthetics of divided government. We might as well get used to it. What we have, after all, are two political parties that hold different views and represent different interests, negotiating hard and down to the wire to get the best agreement they could. It isn’t pretty or perfect by any means, but it is the natural result of the system of government our founders put in place."

The post stimulated an interesting comment thread. Check it out and Welcome to Divided Government.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context means - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock.

For this edition, we offer Darwin presenting Why The Union Backlash? Actually, what was the US Waiting For? posted at Darwin's Money, saying,

"There's been a union backlash movement afoot in the US. The question shouldn't be "why now?", but rather, "why did it take so long?"."

With that, we'll conclude this edition, a day or so late. Sorry about that, but getting the tax return in the mail took priority over the Carnival. The Dividist does not f*ck with the Feds.

Look for the next edition of The Carnival of Divided Government Novem et Quadrâgintâ (XLIX) - Special Horse Race Edition - on or about May 7th. That would be Kentucky Derby Day and two days after the first 2012 Republican Presidential nomination horse race event. Please submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.