Here is an interesting campaign strategy. Senator Elizabeth Dole presents a picture of Obama in the White House and a Democratic Congress. She argues that this threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances and that she, as a Republican, ought to be elected to avoid the excesses of a single party controlling the executive and legislative branches of government.
Throughout Bush’s presidency this of course was not a concern ever expressed to my knowledge by Senator Dole or any other Republican. Republican campaigns were asserting the opposite argument, claiming that this (a Republican majority in Congress) gave Republicans better access to the president and a far better opportunity to work together with the president to get things done.
Dole argument, however disingenuous, is probably closer to the truth. With a Republican Congress Bush has been able to implement a disastrous foreign policy and substantial remove domestic regulations of the financial industry and many others as well. While you would not know it from the 2007-08 Congress, a Democratic majority might have made a difference.
On the other hand the Democrats do not seem to band together as tightly as Republicans. Carter was unable to get his tax reforms through a Democratic Congress. In Washington State the Democrats seem to control everything and get remarkably little done. Part of my problem is that I cannot figure out what in fact it is the defines the Democratic Party. Is pragmatism a defining quality of a political party? If so, it leaves a person with little ability to predict what Democrats will do because we can’t tell with much certainty what will be expedient at the time a decision is required.
So, while I agree with Senator Dole in theory, it’s hard to imagine these Democrats doing very much in a coordinated manner.