In the 20th century, political theorists, professors and old men who sit in barbershops have all debated whether a divided government hinders or helps the continued prosperity of our country. There is no definitive answer to this debate and it will, therefore, continue because it is an enduring reality of our time. As I sit for my haircut, the argument persists around me, with one very old barber arguing that before World War II, our system of a consolidated government was more conducive to passing substantive legislation. "Plain and simple, things got done. My agenda for government, the people's agenda, was accounted for, and that's just not happening these days," the man argued. The other really old barber shot back, "I disagree, because a divided government creates gridlock in the legislative process, leading to compromise and a final bill that better represents my interests." The divided government these men spoke of refers to the situation when the presidency is controlled by one party with its own ideologies and policy positions and the congress is controlled by another party with some competing ideologies and policy positions. Since the framers of the constitution had lived through governmental abuse before, the thought of divided government surely would have pleased them, because it creates a situation where the powers are split to an even greater degree, thus further lessening the chance for abuse.
             It wasn't until after World War II that divided government became a factor in this country. However, since 1946, thirty-four of the fifty-four years were years of divided government. One of the best explanations for divided government lies in the fundamental political desires of the people of this country, the electorate. The majority of the people in this country aren't split to either the extreme left or right, but lie somewhere in the middle. They have some beliefs that are st...