'Divided government' is a phrase that masks decay

Back many years ago, I used to think the U.S. system of government was superior to the systems of nations we considered peers. We elected our leaders directly; political parties had limited power, and our system seemed more functional and decisive than that of the tired old-world democracies beset by endless changes of government, general strikes and decay.

Two or three decades later, I've changed my mind. More and more I'm struck by the fact that ours seems more imperfect and nonfunctional than our global peers. At the core of this, I believe, is the nation's preference for so-called divided government, where the two major parties share power and are expected to negotiate compromise solutions to the needs of a state or nation.

In Europe or Canada or Australia, divided governments are, by their nature, unstable and rarely last more than a few months before new elections are called. Parliamentary systems function with a governing majority or a negotiated coalition free to enact its policy programs.

In the U.S., by contrast, we separately elect the president, House and Senate (as well as various branches of state governments). Take a look at the state or federal system over the past quarter century: By far the most common situation is divided government. Perhaps that's too benign a phrase to describe what we have today:

• Presidential elections where the winner loses the popular vote.

• Supreme Court justices who ignore precedent, do the bidding of ideological adherents and pander to religious doctrine.

• An electoral system rigged against third parties where extremists dominate the candidate selection process.

• Government by presidential executive order and a Senate that will not act on constitutional obligations.

Typically, parties only control all branches of government following landslide elections and this rarely lasts more than a single two-year election cycle. Parties that waste the rare windows of complete control rue the day. The state DFL could not capitalize on its hegemony during the first two years of Gov. Dayton's tenure to pass comprehensive transportation and infrastructure legislation, an issue I care a lot about.

I wrote on this very page that the DFL would regret that descent into political vanity and infighting, and it has. Capitol Republicans have blocked comprehensive funding initiatives since they retook the Minnesota House four years ago, and two more years of divided government are on tap.

I blame the GOP more than the Dems, because its agenda seems to be to oppose most initiatives of government that don't involve policing. But I have little sympathy for the Dems either, as they tilt at the divisive windmills of identity politics that gin up their base at the expense of bread and butter issues of economic well-being that benefit all citizens and build durable electoral coalitions.

There was a time when divided government brought out the resilience of the American system, as presidents and elected representatives worked to negotiate solutions and make policy despite lacking control. Ask any old-timer who participated in state or federal politics before roughly the Newt Gingrich era and you hear stories of government that functioned — of progress in fits and starts rather than inaction or wild lurches.

Though I did not vote for a single Republican in this election cycle, I am encouraged that one party has put an end to divided government for two years, at least in Washington. Now the GOP will be free to put its national program into place. The public will have the opportunity to see which constituencies Republicans stand for, whether President-elect Trump is working on behalf of the average guy, and whether Obamacare was really the scourge of our economy and health system when it's taken away.

And in two years, the public will render judgment. There will be no blaming the other party's intransigence (as we will be doing in Minnesota in 2018).

And more and more I wonder: Is a system that produces unified governments the better way? Does divided government not simply enshrine stasis and the ability of each half of the electorate to endlessly blame the other for government's inability to function?

Now, of course, instituting a system where a single party rules is about as realistic as abolishing the Electoral College. But the frustration Americans showed at the ballot box this year — where they were willing to elect a fringe candidate unproven at government — is a reflection of the dysfunction of the current system and the excesses of both parties.

So, let Mr. Trump and the GOP do their thing and show their stripes to the nation. Then it will render a verdict based on real outcomes rather than dubious theory. Better that than another two years where both parties' adherents seethe under the mantra, "if only they'd let us govern."

Adam Platt lives in Minneapolis.