A split government causes compromise empirically and is better than a single-party government for legislation and democracy.

Not surprisingly, the periods with the most significant legislative changes have occurred under a unified government, while great compromise has most often happened during times of divided control.

For example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) were implemented when the same party controlled all three parts of government.

The question is whether these significant changes were for the betterment or to the detriment of the country. Did these administrations go too far, or did they make much needed change?

As mentioned above, America has also had many periods of divided government when the parties shared power. Let us consider two recent examples, the administrations of President Reagan and President Clinton.

When President Reagan was elected in 1980, the House was controlled by the Democrats and Speaker Tip O’Neill. The divided government forced these two men to work together and, by doing so, they were able to reduce inflation from 12.5% to 4.4% and grew the economy by an average of 3.6% per year.

Similarly, Democrat Bill Clinton was our President from 1992-2000, but Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress during his last six years in office. Once again, the leaders of the two parties cooperated and passed meaningful legislation like Welfare reform and even managed to balance the budget.

Interestingly, since World War II, the two Presidents with the highest approval ratings have been Reagan (63%) and Clinton (66%). While both were very likable men, one must wonder if the division of power held them and their party in check and made Americans a bit happier.

James Madison worried about one faction or party gaining too much power and, consequently, diminishing the rights of the minority. He wrote “Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure.”

While we cannot eliminate political parties, perhaps divided government has at least a mitigating effect on their ills. If you believe that power corrupts, maybe divided government and a dilution of power is best for a democracy.

WHY IT MATTERS

So why should our nation’s ability to effectively manage during times of divided government matter to us today? History has shown that the American people will often elect to have two parties share power. I believe this is a function of the innate tendency of everyday Americans to compromise and get along.

Given this habit of ours, it is comforting to know that divided government not only works, but often works better than a unified government. It is proof of the power of compromise and how we can reconcile our differences if we are willing to give a little and always keep our common goals in mind.