For about 40 years, Democrats had a solid lock on the House of Representatives (early 1950s through 1994). For all but a few of those years, they also had a lock on the Senate. During that time, there were several Democrat presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and the first 2 years of Clinton). We survived.
Since 1994, Republicans have had a small majority in the House. For all but two of those years, they controlled the Senate with a very small majority. This period covered the last 6 years of the Clinton administration and most of the Bush administration. Due to the Senate rules, you really need at least 60 votes to really control the Senate, so really the Republicans didn't have real control of the Senate.
There needs to be serious competition of ideas for the elections. While all 435 members of the House are up for election every two years, the current gerrymandering means that only about 30 of those elections are considered competitive. This is a very bad situation, IMO, and the strongest argument in favor of term limits.
I think that if Republicans were to control Congress for 40 years straight, they'd end up just as corrupt and arrogant as the Democrats were when they had control. This means we need to hold their feet to the electoral fire. If either party fails to be responsive to the voters and to the changing times, then they deserve to go the way of the Whigs. The "two party system" isn't part of the Constitution, and the parties need to keep themselves relevant in order to survive.
Flame » in reply to Why the need for absolute power?
They're called elections
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Why the need for absolute power?
- I'll happily settle for good government. (n/t)
- Premises
- You seem too obsessed with religion
- Sounds like sour grapes to me.
- They're called elections
- re: Why the need for absolute power?
- Perhaps you should address it to the Islamo-fascists?
- re: Cohabitation