Two Presidents Are Better Than One: The Case for a Bipartisan Executive Branch

4 The Problem of Partisan Conflict

88 4 The problem of partisan conflict As discussed in chapter 3, the U.S. constitutional structure has not been able to cabin the power of the presidency. Although the framers worried about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and designed a system to ensure an appropriate balance, they did not leave the United States with the intended balance. The decision to adopt a one-person presidency has contributed to the development of an imperial presidency. This chapter considers the failure of the framers to adequately protect against partisan conflict. Here too the framers anticipated the problem, and here too they misjudged the future. Politics in Washington are highly partisan, and often have been bitterly divisive. The separation of powers was supposed to suppress factional strife, but it has not done so. While multiple factors contribute to the problem of The problem of partisan conflict 89 partisan conflict, the fact that the United States has a one-party presidency is a very important part of the equation. Like the founding fathers, observers today object to strong partisan conflict. Newspaper editors, political commentators, voters, elected officials, and candidates regularly call for a more bipartisan ethic in Washington, DC. During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama not only promised a postpartisan Washington; he made that pledge a centerpiece of his platform. And in his efforts to enact major health care reform, Obama repeatedly emphasized his preference for a bill that had support from both sides of the aisles. Too often, it is thought, conflicts between Democrats and Republicans stymie efforts to pass important legislation. Thus, for example, Congress has struggled to address climate change or immigration reform, and in August 2011, the U.S. credit rating was lowered for the first time when Congress and the president failed to agree on a longterm fix for the country’s budget deficits.¹ Many of the framers of the Constitution hoped for a nonpartisan ethic in Washington. In 18th Century America, political thinkers universally condemned political parties as examples of “factions” that pursued narrow self-interests and threatened the ability of government to promote the broad public interest. Alexander Hamilton believed that party differences could be eliminated through the emergence of a national unity party that embodied the common interest. For James Madison, John Adams, and other founding fathers, parties were seen as the inevitable result of a free society and to be dealt with by governmental structures that would diminish their influence.² Despite the framers’ hopes, Washington is rife with partisan con- flict, and calls for change have failed. If appeals to elected officials for a more bipartisan ethic in Washington are not working, how might we better respond to the problem? This book takes a page from Federalist 51. Madison recognized that people are not angels and that therefore government must be structured to block the harmful impulses of public officials and their constituents.³ Similarly, we should look to structural change to deal with the undesirable effects of partisan con- flict. A two-person, coalition presidency provides a promising structural change. 90 The problem of partisan conflict The rise in partisanship Scholars have documented a striking increase in partisan behavior in Congress over the past several decades. The degree of partisan divide is not unprecedented—while Congress has not been as divided as it is today in more than a century, high levels of partisan conflict were seen during much of the country’s first one hundred years, and particularly during the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th Century. Still, partisan conflict has risen substantially in recent years to exceptionally high levels. When compared with their predecessors of thirty years ago, today’s members of Congress are much more polarized on ideological grounds and much more likely to vote along party lines. Moderates in both parties have been replaced by more conservative or more liberal legislators.⁴ Theory would suggest less polarization between Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, one might expect each of the national political parties to exhibit a fair amount of diversity in terms of ideology. Some people might join the Republican Party because of fiscal conservatism , others to promote a strong military, and others to make abortion illegal. Republicans from Arizona will have different concerns than Republicans in North Dakota. And ideologies should cross party...