Political Science

Start Free Trial

Identify some advantages to the nation that might follow when one party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.  

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

One advantage that could occur when one party controls both the Congress and the presidency is that is could be easier to get laws passed and signed. If one party has a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, this party should be able to pass bills....

See
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

One advantage that could occur when one party controls both the Congress and the presidency is that is could be easier to get laws passed and signed. If one party has a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, this party should be able to pass bills. If the President is in agreement with the bill, which is often the case as the President is often consulted during the legislative process, he will likely sign the bill into law. It is important for the party in control to be unified in its thinking in order to take advantage of having all of this political power.

Another advantage for the country is that if things don’t get done when one party is in control, it is possible that this party will suffer in the next election. Voters could hold the party responsible for not fulfilling its promises or for not getting things accomplished when it had all of the political power.

If different parties control either Congress or the presidency, there might be more opposition to the passage of bills, or the President might refuse to sign various bills. The likelihood of a stalemate or of gridlock in government might increase if different parties control either the houses of Congress or the presidency.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In 2009 and 2010 President Barack Obama had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic Congress, yet he was unable to pass a budget.  Even his own party rejected his proposed budget. So, just because the branches of government have a majority of one party, there is no guarantee that legislation can be passed.

The fact that the current president has been unsuccessful in passing a budget and avoiding the "fiscal cliff" points to other issues than that of party.  Conservative President Ronald Reagan reached across parties to Majority Whip in the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, a liberal, and they were able to make legislative progress. Likewise, Democratic president Bill Clinton was able to accomplish things with a Republican Congress.  So, whether all one party controls the government does not necessarily mean progress or success. Also, when one party controls the government, democracy in that country is greatly threatened.

President Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here."  Perhaps, this plaque should be revived so that blame cannot be continually put upon the opposing party when leaders do not get their way.  Reason may be a better guide than partisanship.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

There would be one major benefit that the nation would enjoy if all three of these parts of the government were to be in the hands of one party.  This benefit would be that it would be much more likely that the government would be able to take action to solve the problems that the country faces.  This situation would also have the added, if smaller, benefit of allowing voters to know who to blame if things went badly.

In our current situation, it is very difficult to get anything done at the federal level.  We have seen this in the recent conflict over the “fiscal cliff.”  Even in this most important of instances, the three parts of the government had a very hard time agreeing to make any changes needed to avoid economic disaster.  It seems very unlikely that anything of substance will be made into law in this Congress even though the US badly needs things like tax reform and entitlement reform.  If one party were in control, it would be much more likely that something would be done.

If nothing gets done, it will be difficult in the current situation for voters to know whom to blame.  Both sides will be able to claim that the other side was the cause of the gridlock.  If one party were in control, it could get its agenda passed.  If the agenda proved to be harmful to the country, people could easily place the blame on the party in power and vote it out of office.

Thus, if we no longer had divided government, our government would be more likely to accomplish things and we would know which party to blame in the event that things went wrong.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team