The Dangers of Shared Power

Possibly the defining feature of the American system, what truly sets our form of government apart, is the limits on the powers of the President. Though the powers bestowed to the President have expanded exponentially from its inception, to this day it remains only a third of the controlling power (at least in theory). Unlike many other democratic systems around the world, the executive and legislative powers are separate and distinct, which prevents totalitarian control, but can lead to conflict and stagnation in the opposite extreme. This creates a strange paradox due to the stubbornness and ideological differences between the two parties. If a President holds the support of the House and the Senate, he or she will (usually) be able to control what laws are enacted and how the government operates. However, this violates the ideology of our system of checks and balances despite the officials being democratically elected. Conversely, if the President has the support of only one or neither branch of Congress, it becomes exponentially more difficult for the President to enact the policies that he or she was elected for. Once again however, this ensures that the President will not accrue too much power as the power is divided.

Thus it appears that whenever a new administration comes to power, the American people are confronted with a hard choice: do they want their freedom violated in return for progress, or to retain their rights and have their government shut down every four months. Though I have no argument against people of different ideologies disagreeing and coming to a stalemate, I take issue with the fact that much of the proceedings of Congress that opposes the President often devolve into not working together because they belong to different parties. The most prominent example of this came in the case of the nomination and subsequent opposition to the election of Merrick Garland to the vacant Supreme Court seat.

The Republican controlled Congress under the Obama administration was responsible for a record 79 blocked nominations (there were only 68 in the entire history of the United States preceding), yet none were quite as severe as the blocking of Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was never even granted a hearing by the opposition in order to establish whether or not he was capable of filling the position. Though it would not be strange for an opposition party to block a nomination, the refusal to even meet with Garland hints at a near prejudicial reluctance to cooperate. With the upcoming midterm elections likely to swing Congress to a Democratic controlled institution, it is very likely that we will enter a repeating cycle of partisan discord.