Gridlock is my best hope for our federal elections- President of one party, Congress of another, they fight like cats and dogs and actually ponder some of the legislation before it sails through, jacking up our deficit. I don't think it's going to work out that way. I think that while both Obama and McCain are weak candidates, the Republican brand is so damaged by self-inflicted wounds that a can of Alpo could defeat McCain.
So, we're going to have one-party rule. As we saw recently with the Republicans, one-party rule is expensive and damaging. President Bush vetoed nothing his party in Congress presented him. Spending and deficits soared. Is there any reason to think that things will be different under a President Obama? Would he veto anything his party in Congress brings him?
What should give anyone pause is the evidence we can see with regards to one-party, Democratic Party rule. We have it in many major American cities. Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland- these are all examples of cities with Democratic Mayors and Democratic Councils. They have all had such majorities for at least 15 years (Cleveland) or much longer even. Democrats are supposed to be strong on their domestic agenda, addressing poverty and unemployment with their social programs.
So, why do these cities still have crushing poverty and high unemployment? Shouldn't these long-entrenched Democratic policies have reversed these problems by now? If 15 years isn't enough, what length of time is required?
The Republican brand is about to be soundly rejected upon the strong evidence provided- as it should be. But, with such large cities offering compelling evidence simultaneously, why should the Democratic brand not also be rejected? Is it merely the least offensive in the moment?
(h/t Melyssa Donaghey, for her comments at Indiana Barrister)