The Presidency and Single Party Democratic Rule

[Chico Man]

Looking forward two years, imagine we retain control of the Senate and the House. We also win the presidency. Are there any risks with such a bipolar shift in rule towards the democratic side?

How important is a balance of power regardless of party affiliation? Is the Democatic Party itself centrist enough to ensure this balance, even if the Republicans has no leadership whatsoever?

Whatever the case, that was quite the purge of the radical right here in this country. Only time will tell what other changes we will see.

[unpossibles]

1. there is nothing inherently wrong with single party rule provided

they actually police and balance themselves, and barring that, the people police them.

The Democratic party tends to be much less unified than the Republicons, so I don't really see this being as big of a problem, but I suppose I could be biased.

I will say it again though: if the people I vote for break laws and get sucked into the corporate-corruption game I will not defend them and neither will most of us. That is the difference to me.

[endarkenment]

2. Democrats ruled Congress for 60 years.

Frequently with both houses under firm control. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Carter all had majority support in both houses. In general we did not abuse our power or resort to the crap that the Ginrich Gang pulled as they took over. Nor did our party attempt to lock in permanent majority status through a criminal conspiracy of corrupt practices.

[aquart]

5. Reasonably true.

However, let's not pretend our boys were the most honest sweeties in town. The difference may have been that it was Congress vs the White House vs the Supreme Court. Congress was mindful of its own prerogatives, which this Congress bizarrely ceded to Boy Emperor George.

[Selatius]

3. The problem with single party rule is a sort of arrogance of power seeps in.

When you hold power for too long, you are corrupted by it. I can't think of any other reason why the Democrats lost so completely, so utterly in 1994. The sense in the American population back then was utter disgust at the perceived corruption and cronyism in government in 1994. It seems that same disgust came back in 2006 against Republicans.

It is for this reason I favor proportional representation. It reduces the chance that any single political party in the political arena could gain a majority of seats in the legislature, and it makes it far easier for voters to remove political parties they find no longer favorable and replace them.

[aquart]

6. New York Dems had to wander in the wilderness for years

Because of our corrupt, one-party arrogance. We deserved it. We earned it. Can you imagine being so bloody corrupt you don't manage to open the schools????????????????

Hopefully, the Republicans will also be reformed and chastised by their exile.

[aquart]

4. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it corrupts ANYONE.

With the possible exception of Lincoln Chaffee.

It is ridiculous to pretend that we could not become as corrupt as the Republicans.

This country was designed for debate and COMPROMISE. It doesn't work unless we work it that way. One party rule AWAYS shuts off debate.

We're not out to destroy the Republicans. We're out to turn them into a loyal, honest opposition. Jail often helps with that. So does strictly enforced legislation.