Unified government

[pjohns]

Many on the left have been busily decrying the (perceived) evils of divided government: It inevitably leads to "obstructionism." Or so we are lectured.

Well, beginning in January, we will have a fully unified government: The White House; control of the Senate; and control of the House, all in the hands of one party.

Presumably, those on the left should now be deliriously happy with this result.

But do you suppose that they really will be?

[Doug Loss]

Frankly, unified or divided government means much less to me than less government.  Barring major government downsizing, I'm all for divided government if it can provide gridlock, as much as possible keeping the government from bothering people.  Of course, the bureaucracies don't ever seem to be gridlocked...let's see if we can't figure out a way to gridlock them too.

[pjohns]

Frankly, unified or divided government means much less to me than less government.  Barring major government downsizing, I'm all for divided government if it can provide gridlock, as much as possible keeping the government from bothering people.  Of course, the bureaucracies don't ever seem to be gridlocked...let's see if we can't figure out a way to gridlock them too.

Probably the House and the Senate (somewhat conservative, anyway) will provide a bit of a check on Donald Trump (principally, a populist).

But to return to the subject of the thread:  Do you suppose that the left will now be happy? 

[INVAR]

I'm all for divided government.

The more divided it is, the less chance they have to take away more of our liberty.

Which is the only thing government in this age knows how to do.

That said, what the Left wants is UNIFIED STATISM under a Socialist/Communist central authority.

And right now the alt-Right wants UNIFIED STATISM under a Populist Nationalist central authority.

Both are disasters for liberty.