A reader writes:
This comparison also works the other way, in regards to economic/domestic policy. While there are several Republican reforms that I (a left leaning independent) would like to see carried out, there is no way I could trust the current Republican party to implement them with proper care to ensure that everyone benefits, not just the business elite. Welfare reform and NAFTA come to mind as generally right-leaning concepts that I feel have been largely successful due to their reasoned execution by Bill Clinton – and I would have been willing to support him had he pursued school choice and a partial privatization of Social Security. Meanwhile, a welfare reform plan pushed by Bush and his (former) flunkies in Congress probably would have created more poverty, and I could not bring myself to support CAFTA as it barely made an attempt to address possible environmental and labor problems (the fact that its sponsors in the House, Tom Delay and Bill Jefferson, are the most corrupt Congressmen from either party didn’t help).
Bush on AIDS (see below) would be proof in the opposite direction. All this is more evidence to me, at least, that divided government is often the best. A Democrat forced to temper and enforce conservative policies can be as effective as a Republican forced to administer and moderate liberal policies. We might even get away with government doing much less. Alas, we have had a Republican lock-hold that has given us the worst of conservatism (executive branch abuse, arrogant war-bungling, Christianist social policy) with the the worst of liberalism (massive increases in government spending, regulation, entitlements and pork). Time for a check and balance, no?
The Dish 