Divided We Stand

As regular readers here know, I love divided government.

Divided government often means gridlock, and gridlock usually makes it harder for politicians to launch expensive new programs — programs which usually rob Peter to pay Peter to not do things Paul doesn’t like Peter to do, while providing tax breaks to both Peter and Paul, unless Peter and Paul are a gay couple attempting to live normal suburban lives together, in which case Peter and Paul can go [blank] themselves, which they were going to do anyway, which is the usual result of all new government programs, only less expensive and meddlesome.

Anyway.

Alex Knapp has a question for people who like divided government, but who are also in favor of strongly waging the war:

…how about supporting Bush for President while at the same time working to allow the Democrats control of Congress–or at least the Senate, which is really vulnerable right now? That way the WOT can continue, but with hostile oversight from Congress preventing some serious debacles, while bad domestic policies will get drug out and gridlocked.

A fine idea, and one I wholly endorse.

With one little caveat: It won’t work.

Thanks to gerrymandering, the House is pretty much set. Sure, a major shift in public sentiment, ala 1994, could upset the applecart — but it ain’t gonna happen this year.

And the Senate? More Democrats are retiring than Republicans, and a couple of them are going back home to their “red states.” Even worse, the Incumbent Protection Act — er, McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act — makes it tough to get rid of any sitting senator.

That’s my two cents.

Your thoughts? Share them with Alex.