News Article

John Mashburn was recently interviewed by Jonathan Groner, senior communications counsel at Womble Carlyle, on divided government, bipartisanship, and other key legislative issues. The following is a transcript of the second part of that interview. Click here to read the transcript of Part I.

JONATHAN GRONER: Do you expect a continuation of the divisiveness in the 109th Congress or will there be at least a brief honeymoon period?

JOHN MASHBURN: There will be two good indicators as to whether there will be a "honeymoon" of bipartisan cooperation. The first is the approach that the more conservative Republican senators adopt early on. If they oppose the rumored compromises from the outset and are as effective at holding 41 votes together in opposition as the Democrats were under Minority Leader Harry Reid the last two years, then the legislative process will quickly get stuck in the mire and there will be no honeymoon. The approach President Bush takes toward the Democrats will also greatly impact the conservatives' ability to hold those 41 votes together. Second, and equally important, will be whether the Democrats continue their campaign rhetoric into the new Congress and cite every compromise and passage of legislation as proof that the new Democrat majority in Congress is more effective at governing than the last so-called "do nothing" Republican Congress was. That would also quickly throttle any honeymoon of bipartisan co-operation or compromise.

My view, after two decades observing Democrat and Republican behavior in Congress, is that there will be an initial period of bipartisan compromise in the Senate and thus hope for the Congress as a whole. Whether it endures will hinge on whether the bipartisan compromises made by Senate Republicans are respected by the Democrat majority in the House and not just the Senate Democrats during the legislative conferences between the two houses. If those early compromises are tossed out or abrogated by the Conference Reports that come back to the Senate, then this upcoming Congress will end up in gridlock just as quickly as the 109th Congress did.

In the House, I expect passions will continue to prevail on both sides of the aisle -- and even within each caucus, with Blue Dog Democrats at odds with their leadership on occasion and Republican Study Committee members at odds with theirs. But given the near absolute power of the majority in the House, the only real effect of partisanship and divisiveness in the House on the legislative process will be the extent to which it undermines the ability or willingness of Republicans as a political matter to compromise in the Senate. This would mirror events in the last Congress, when the roles were reversed and the treatment of the Democrat minority in the House was often cited by Senate Democrats as justification for their frequent -- and usually successful -- opposition to the Republican majority’s legislative agenda. After 12 years in the minority in both chambers, it will be difficult for Democrats to fight their own built up political imperatives and break with this pattern of unilateralism by the majority any time soon. If they do, there will likely be a long and significant period of bipartisan cooperation. If not, we will quickly end up in another legislative standoff until the next election – with both parties likely sharing blame this time.

JONATHAN GRONER: There's been a lot of talk about what really happens in "divided government," when the White House is controlled by one party and Congress by the other. In your experience, do periods of divided government result in stagnation, or can significant legislation pass Congress in those circumstances?

JOHN MASHBURN: Because President Bush has enjoyed a so-called "trifecta" over the last 4 years - whereby his party has had control over the Presidency, the House, and the Senate all at the same time – many have quickly forgotten that it is "divided government" that has prevailed over most of the past 4 decades. In fact, "divided government" -- where one party occupies the White House while the other party controls BOTH Houses of Congress -- has actually been the state of government for 28 of the last 38 years.

Since 1969, when Richard Nixon succeeded Lyndon Johnson as President (even as Democrats maintained control over the 91st Congress), Presidents have enjoyed a "trifecta" like Bush’s during only five of the last 20 Congresses (counting the upcoming 110th) – i.e. for just ten of the last 40 years. Jimmy Carter had two Democrat Congresses during his one-term Presidency, Bill Clinton had one during his eight years in office, and George W. Bush will have had two Republican Congresses during his eight years in office. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush never enjoyed a single Congress completely controlled by their own party. Reagan did get six years (three Congresses) where Republicans controlled the Senate, but not the House.

However, the historical record shows that significant legislation can and does get passed in such situations. Yes, during the Great Society era in the 1960’s when Democrats not only occupied the White House but enjoyed near super-majorities in both the House and the Senate, sweeping and wide ranging federal legislation was passed. But far-reaching legislation can also pass during periods of divided government such as the creation of the EPA, NOAA, the DEA, Amtrak, the SSI program, and passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Reagan tax cuts, the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1996 Welfare Reform bill, and finally creation of the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11. So, the record is clear that "divided government" by itself does not have to lead to complete stagnation in the federal legislative arena.

Jonathan Groner is the Senior Communications Counsel at Womble Carlyle.