The myth of "one-party rule"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the presidential campaign was nearing its end, as the Republicans were getting more and more desperate amid prospects of doom, the McCain-Palin fear- and smearmongering focused not just on Obama's "socialism" but on how horrible so-called "one-party rule" would be for the country. McCain himself put it this way: "We're getting a glimpse of what one-party rule would look like under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Apparently it starts with lowering our defenses and raising our taxes."

Two things:

1) A new CNN poll finds that "59 percent of those questioned said Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, compared with 38 percent saying such one-party control will be bad." In other words, the American people are, contra McCain, fine with one-party rule, as long as the one party is the Democratic Party.

2) What does "one-party rule" even mean? In a parliamentary system, where the party with the most seats in the legislature is usually the one that forms the government, a party with a majority of seats can indeed rule as one. It forms the government, formally linking the executive and legislative branches, and, for the most party, can control its caucus. As members of the party require the party's, and the party leader's support, there are only very rarely any defections from the party line. There may be so-called "free" votes, where members are free to vote as they please, but, on major legislative items, such as the budget, or other so-called "confidence" matters (where a vote against the government means a lack of confidence in the government, generally forcing it to step down or call an election), there is strict party-line voting.

There can be no such "one-party rule" in the American presidential system. Yes, as we saw under Bush, a party that controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue can effectively rule as one, and there is often a good deal of arm-twisting by the whips, and defectors can be punished by the party, but, for the most part, members of Congress, both Senators and Congressmen alike, are free to vote as they please. This is why, on most votes, there is cross-over voting, with members of each party voting with the majority of the other.

Simply put, the two parties are not monoliths. This was true of the Republicans pre-2006, and it is certainly true of the Democrats now. McCain and other Republican fearmongers may talk up the Obama-Reid-Pelosi alliance, as if they are all essentially one and the same, but, though they may agree more often than not, they are not in any like the governing party in a parliamentary system. Obama is not about to do what Reid and Pelosi want without question, Reid and Pelosi are not about to be Obama's rubber-stampers (like the Republicans were under Bush), and Reid and Pelosi are not about to unite on all matters.

What's more, even where these three agree, there is no guarantee that they will be able to secure the support of enough Democratic members to do what they want. Consider, for example, the Blue Dogs, the coalition of right-leaning or otherwise conservative Democrats in the House. With influential members like Jane Harman and Heath Shuler, and with representation from all over the country, they are not about to go along with the party leadership on all matters. Indeed, they are likely to try to block any sort of liberal-progressive legislative agenda (or at least much of it). In the Senate, too, there are moderates and conservatives who are not about to go along with Reid. And as popular and powerful as Obama is, there is only so much he can do.

And so the whole idea of "one-party rule" is basically a myth. While the Republicans were able, more or less, to maintain party unity, especially after 9/11, given Bush's immense popularity (for a time), the Democrats remain a divided party (in what I hope is a dynamic and productive way) with members who will not simply do what they are told.

It's called the American way.