It depends. But I would argue that what it relies on is probably different from what most people believe is important.
When I was young, I looked at this issue from a partisan perspective. (In my opinion) If the party I oppose becomes president, a divided government is better, and if the party I prefer becomes president, a unified government is better. I think this is a fairly widely held view, especially among well-educated voters. But now I think this is wrong.
I have come to the view that the determining factor is not “which party has the presidency,” but that the optimal outcome depends on the answer to this question.
Is this an era of relatively good governance or relatively bad governance?
If we operate in an era where governments are engaging in useful reforms such as deregulation, privatization, trade liberalization, fiscal responsibility, and tax reform, a stronger central government may be a good thing. If we are operating in an era of socialism and nationalism, increased government power is usually a bad thing.
Most readers of this blog live in the United States, so I won’t use an American example to illustrate this point. It’s so difficult to see beyond our own personal political biases. Instead, look across the pond and consider Britain’s recent history.
They had three relatively long periods of mostly one-party rule. The Conservatives were in power from 1979 to 1997, the Labor Party was in power from 1997 to 2010, and the Conservatives were in power again until last summer’s election. What do we know about this era?
1. Governments often perform better in the early stages. They come to office with plans to correct the failures of the previous administration, and often do something useful early in their term. This runs out of fuel and reduces the quality of policy-making.
2. When the world zeitgeist moves in a “neoliberal” direction (e.g. until 2007), governments tend to make better policy decisions, and when the world moves in an illiberal direction, they tend to make less effective policy decisions. .
I certainly wouldn’t tell people how to vote, and in fact, in a presidential year, you can’t know for sure whether your vote will lead to a unified or divided government. (In midterm elections, voters know.) But one thing to consider may be whether we are in an era of good governance or an era of bad governance. Is the political zeitgeist moving in the direction of balanced budgets and supply-side reform, or in the opposite direction? How much confidence do you have in the policy-making process in America today?
One last point. I would not rule out the possibility that divided government can do more good than bad. It depends on how much “activism” you prefer. My own views are somewhat hostile to government activism, so my bias is toward divided government. In this post, I’ll try to explain when each result appears. comparative More importantly, it doesn’t have to be what is best in an absolute sense. If I prefer government activism, I might be inclined to the view that unified government is generally best. Nevertheless, I think people tend to underestimate the importance of the zeitgeist, that is, whether we are in an era of relatively good governance or an era of relatively bad governance.
