🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct13.235823.10661@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>The main advantage to either Perot or Bush is that they'll
>probably be at a continual stalemate with congress.  My fear is
>that Clinton will get elected and he and congress will really
>destroy the country.  No government is better than government
>kow-towing to the lowest common denominator trying to buy
>re-election by promising something for nothing!

I've seen this argument before: "What better way to control the
government than to elect a President and Congress who will be at
loggerheads and get nothing done?  That government is best that governs
least!"

The problem is that "getting nothing done" is no longer the same as
"not doing anything."  The government is a massive body moving in a
certain direction.  If the legislators (Congress and President) cannot
accomplish anything because of legislative gridlock, the government will
simply continue moving in the same direction (and spending the same
ever-increasing amount of money).  Inaction in this case will lead to a
deepening of the current problems; we need to have a legislature that
can take action and change the course of the government.

In my opinion, this means that we need something that we haven't had in
a long time: a government in which the Executive and Legislative
branches are controlled by the same party.  This is considered by most
other countries in the world to be the minimum definition of a
"government," and is the only way to bring the government in line with
the will of the people.

When the Congress and the Presidency are in opposing hands, both
branches can take irresponsible actions and then blame any failures on
the opposition of the other party.  In this situation both parties
actually benefit from ineffective government, because failures can be
used to embarrass the other party (as the recent Family Leave Bill was
approved by Congress to embarrass Bush and vetoed by Bush to embrarrass
Congress).  This encourages legislative gridlock rather than
cooperation.

When the Congress and the Presidency are in the same hands, they must
act together or they will be viewed as a divided and ineffective
party.  In this situation the party in control benefits only from
effective government, because ineffective government would embarrass
only them.

That's why I support Clinton.  The Republicans are unlikely to take
Congress this year, so a Bush presidency would lead to continued
gridlock and an ever-increasing deficit.  Perot would be an "other
party" president no matter who controlled Congress; Congress has no
motivation whatsoever to cooperate with him, so he will be unlikely to
accomplish any of his proposed reforms.  But Clinton, if elected
together with a Democratic Congress, must cooperate with them.  The
President and Congress would no longer be able to point fingers at each
other to explain why they can't get anything done.  Instead, they will
be powerfully motivated to compromise on plans that can be approved by
the fifty states' legislators and signed by the President -- failure to
cooperate would lead to loss of image and hence power.  This will lead
to Presidential budgets and programs that are designed to be passed
rather than simply to embarrass Congress, and some real planning rather
than posturing on the part of Congressional leaders.

The same would occur if Bush were elected together with a Republican
Congress.  However, I personally prefer the Democratic policies.  Your
mileage may vary.

- David D. Levine == davidl@ssd.intel.com
  These are my personal opinions and not those of Intel Corporation.