Divided Government Is Good. In 2023, Bipartisanship Would Be Better.
From immigration to drug reform, there is plenty of potential for productive compromise.

The upcoming midterm election has got me thinking about divided government. In normal times, the prospect of newly shared power in Washington might have me looking forward to the resulting slowdown of one party's hyperactive agenda. The Democrats who are in power are indeed pushing a fiscal and regulatory agenda that has become a serious risk to Americans' prosperity and freedom.
But these are not normal times. Today, I don't know how confident I am in divided government. If it's going to work, Republicans must bring better ideas to the table, and both parties must be more open to bipartisanship.
Here are just a few of my concerns. Some GOP candidates are either barely fit or altogether unfit for office. Democrats may be no better, but two wrongs don't make a right. More and more, many Republicans abandon serious thinking about policy and governing and instead focus on making Democrats' lives a living hell.
I also worry that the main result of divided government will simply be a continuation of the hyperpartisan investigations of the other party. After years of Democratic House trials of Republicans, I am not looking forward to Republican investigations of Hunter Biden or President Joe Biden's handling of the border crisis. This agenda is not sound.
Let me suggest an alternative, albeit imperfect, path.
From my small-government perspective, divided government typically has a small advantage, but moving away from today's toxic political environment will require politicians on both sides of the aisle to learn, once again, to work together to address our national challenges.
Based on past bipartisan efforts, I do worry that Congress will only work together to pass a counterproductive extended child tax credit or federal paid leave program. But I hope they would instead find a practical means of dealing with the crisis at the border. This mess is bipartisan, and it won't get resolved without Republicans and Democrats working together. A failure to address a true humanitarian crisis reflects badly on all of them.
Besides, most Americans want to restore order at the border while also generally welcoming immigrants. Immigrants are a proven positive force in the U.S. economy. The country has plenty of space and 10.1 million job openings that native-born Americans seem uninterested in filling. It appears to me that there is plenty of potential for a productive compromise.
Another area where a bipartisan effort would be fruitful is marijuana legalization. While cannabis is legal for medical or recreational use in many states, it is still classified as an illegal Schedule I drug at the federal level. Biden took the first step last week by asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the attorney general to look into changing the federal government's approach.
The GOP should get on board. Americans are pro-legalization. The War on Drugs has torn families apart and especially hurts lower-income African Americans. Republicans might recall that one of the most famous conservatives of the past century, William F. Buckley, supported marijuana decriminalization.
Finally, to realize the bipartisan goal of renewing our infrastructure, Republicans should take a second pass at reforming the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their major actions. The results have been an unnecessarily high barrier to building infrastructure projects—including environmentally friendly ones. To its credit, former President Donald Trump's administration pushed some reforms of this act, but these were unwisely reversed by the Biden administration.
Scholars from both sides of the aisle have produced lots of data showing that NEPA's enormous economic costs far exceed its environmental improvements. While voters might not know how terrible NEPA is, they do want well-maintained roads and bridges. That result won't happen in a timely fashion without serious NEPA reform.
As Eli Dourado eloquently writes, "To become a nation that builds, we must tear down the regulatory obstacles….If we want to build infrastructure as well as housing, we need to address environmental review as well as zoning. We must protect the environment, but we need not do it indirectly with laws that operate only through paperwork and court cases." Republicans should lead that effort. Even if it is met with a presidential veto, they will have started the education of the public on this issue.
In this upside-down world where I have mixed feelings about divided government, bipartisan compromise that solves problems rather than growing the government would cool tensions and address some of our most pressing challenges.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Divided government was just a very different animal in the mid/late 20th century than it has been this century. I think it worked better back then but largely because divided government was more about Presidential veto usage then than it is now about the House and Senate flipping or being divided themselves.
Certainly divided government this century has been a colossal clusterfuck for running the government on increasing debt and avoiding all budget resolutions and spending discussions in favor of autopilot.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this site.. http://www.Profit97.com
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here……..>>> OnlineCareer1
The size of government is more important than it's division.
Last Century it wasn't as big as it is this century.
A Constitutional Government (very def of USA) is what's missing.
Sorry, we've seen bipartisanship before. Going the wrong way a little slower still leads you over the cliff.
Strange how there was no such call for bipartisanship when the Democrats won control of everything a couple years ago…
Especially curious given her stated “small-government perspective” and the all too obvious fact that the Democratic party is, and historically has been the party of all-big-government-all-the-time.
So much so that a more skeptical person might begin to question her credibility on this subject.
Or her sincerity.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a (ad-10) lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Maybe a little slower would be better than the fast track we are taking now.
There is no compromise.
There is only give the Democrats everything, get nothing back.'
Funny the progressives say the same thing only their take is the Republicans get everything they want.
Yes, but progressives are illiterate, ahistorical morons.
Just because Progressives PROJECT all the time.
Republicans generally **don't** WANT MORE Gov-Guns to be used against citizens but Democrats are so criminalisticly self-centered they like to call out their own problems on everyone but them.
Nope, sorry, hoping that divided government will work this time is about as useful as Ilya Somin voting for Joe Biden because Trump spent too much.
Some of us might say the same thing about bipartisanship. The cluster fuck that is the "war on drugs" was and is heavily bipartisan.
Bipartisanship rarely means good things for we the people.
Damn. I posted that late last night after a long day. Got the two reversed, what a maroon stunt!
Well, it doesn't really matter, government fucks things up whether divided or bipartisan. I'd rather divided, but I'd really rather on full time vacation, keep the pay.
The *size* of the Nazi-Empire doesn't grow as well in a divided "democracy". The real problem and solution is a Constitutional Government as it should've been legally all along.
Divided government is as good as ever.
We don't need immigration reform; the current immigration laws allow a generous level of immigration, people illegally present in the country can be removed, and employers hiring the can be punished.
We don't need federal drug reform either; drug legalization isn't going to result in any substantial improvements in the crime or social problems associated with drugs.
And Republicans don't need to bring better ideas to the table; simply not passing any new laws and obstructing the Democrats is the best thing they can do.
If it were the job of the Federal government to deal with social problems then you might have a point in there somewhere. But it's NOT the purpose of the Federal government to deal with social problems, so you're quite simply and completely wrong. There should be a simple system for identifying and documenting everyone who wants to come into the country and letting them pursue any not otherwise illegal activities they like while here including working for pay. There should be no laws against manufacturing, importing, possessing, distributing, selling or using drugs. They've been trying the alternative you espouse for decades and it has catastrophically FAILED!
I don't "espouse" the alternative. I'm saying that you are a fool if you think that legalizing drugs is going to fix America's problems with drugs or violence; those problems are cultural, not legal.
I oppose drug legalization not out of some ideological principle, but because it is ineffective and won't deliver on its promises, and because any attempt to legalize drugs has been used, and will be used, to extend the power of the state.
I didn't make an abstract point about "the purpose of the federal government", I made a point about real-world political choices. And from a real-world point of view, it is preferable for the federal government to enforce immigration law strictly, and drug legalization is pointless.
But I agree in principle: it is not the job of the federal government to deal with social problems. So, as soon as we abolish all federal welfare programs, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, education grants, development grants, civil right legislation and enforcement, and any of the other programs that it is not the federal government's job to do, then we can also open the borders and legalize drugs.
What you want is a highly selective and limited elimination of current federal functions, and that doesn't result in more liberty, it results in the further deterioration of the US. You aren't a libertarian, you are a progressive and authoritarian trying to Alinsky to libertarians. You can go to hell.
"And Republicans don’t need to bring better ideas to the table; simply not passing any new laws and obstructing the Democrats is the best thing they can do."
^Agree with this. Disagree with everything else. The Feds have only made the drug problem worse, they should repeal the CSA and leave the issue to the states to deal with. Strengthening border control will, unfortunately, have to wait till the next Administration.
There will never be a clean repeal of the CSA; any attempt to legalize drugs at the federal level will be used to extend the power of the federal government, to introduce new taxes and new spending, and to create new intrusive, privacy-violating regulations.
That might be worth it if drug legalization substantially reduced the problems with drugs and violence that the US has, but it won't: the problems the US has with drugs are cultural, not legal. They are also related to the generous US welfare system and power of the medical system. Repealing the CSA won't fix any of those problems.
That's why it's better to leave drug legalization alone, at least for now.
"the problems the US has with drugs are cultural, not legal."
News for all the police, lawyers, judges, prison keepers, and parole officers who deal with drug offenders on a daily basis. News for the tax payer who has to foot the bill for all this frenzied activity.
And you think that those "police, lawyers, judges, prison keepers, and parole officers" would just get productive, private sector jobs and that the tax payer would save the money? You really are naive. You have cause and effect reversed.
We have this level of "police, lawyers, judges, prison keepers, and parole officers" because that's what public sector unions, lawyers, and politicians can extract from taxpayers, and they need to do something. Having them go after people who aid in the self-harm of others is one of the least destructive things they can do to society.
Any kind of "drug legalization" would simply be used as an excuse to take even more money from taxpayers, expand the legal system even more, and intrude into people's privacy even more than the federal government is already doing.
"Any kind of “drug legalization” would simply be used as an excuse to take even more money from taxpayers, expand the legal system even more, and intrude into people’s privacy even more than the federal government is already doing."
A true conservative. Best not to change anything. You opposed the troop withdrawal for the same reasons? Whatever bad things the troops were doing in Afghanistan, they're doing worse back home. I'm not sure what intrusions on privacy you think are worse than putting people in cages for years on end, as happens routinely under the drugs wars you are defending.
You can avoid being put in cages for drug crimes by not committing drug crimes.
I'm not "defending" the drug war, I am saying that in this political system and climate, "ending the drug war" would be abused by authoritarians to advance their agenda.
"You can avoid being put in cages for drug crimes by not committing drug crimes."
What if you want to commit drug crimes? What about freedom to do as you choose as long as you don't hurt others?
" I am saying that in this political system and climate, “ending the drug war” would be abused by authoritarians to advance their agenda."
What you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense. What could be more abusive than locking people in cages for years?
Poor Veronique is completely out of touch with reality.
My immediate conclusion upon finishing this article:
“Aw, that’s nice.”
That ship, if it floated at all, done sailed.
Yes! Only government can address the problems our nation faces, chief among them being the problem of too much government. I'm sure they'll get right on that. And once the flying unicorns shitting gold nickels get done doing their thing, we'll all be living in high cotton.
Hilarious and spot-on well said. The blatant dishonesty/untrustworthy of politicians shines ever so obviously in there politics after taking their sworn oath of office.
Read the comments on any political story in the Washington Post, and you’ll get a feeling for the chances of anything bi-partisan. Heck. Just read the story.
Bipartisan increasingly means: Democrats get whatever they want after some RINO's get it watered down a fraction to be palatable to them.
Poor Veronique is so out of touch with reality.
The same claims that had Reason prefer Biden. How is that working out? The old normal is working out swell.
My real concern is whether or not this article is biased in any way.
We would have been far better off with divided government for the last 2 years. Joe, Nancy and Chuck have done irreparable damage.
So in spite of citing past failures of bipartisan (and unwanted successes), Veronique still wants to try again?
Out-of-touch is too nice, more like hopelessly optimistic.
Bipartisanship got us the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the bank bailouts (just to name a few off the top of my head). I'll take obstruction and division, thanks.
It also got us the Constitution.
The problem with bipartisanship is it does not mean anything in the worth of the policies promoted. It just means the two major parties are working together. Given the old saw that the GOP is the stupid party and the Democrats are the evil party, therefore legislation when they work together tends to be stupid and evil. It seems to be a naive thing to hope for.
When authoritarian socialists are in power
"We must stick to our principals!"
When the auth socialists are defeated, and populists are in power
"Bipartisanship is the way!"
The upcoming midterm election has got me thinking about divided government. In normal times
Ah, so NOW we want careful compromise. Right when you're about to get your ass kicked.
"Whoa... everyone, let's be REASONABLE here!"
But these are not normal times. Today, I don't know how confident I am in divided government. If it's going to work, Republicans must bring better ideas to the table, and both parties must be more open to bipartisanship.
Better ideas than the adults we currently have in the room? Which Donkey ideas are so good that you're afraid they'll be torpedoed?
Here are just a few of my concerns. Some GOP candidates are either barely fit or altogether unfit for office. Democrats may be no better, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Would have been nice to hear terms like "unfit for office" when the Democrats were not only running, but winning and being (in some cases) endorsed by Reason.
I also worry that the main result of divided government will simply be a continuation of the hyperpartisan investigations of the other party. After years of Democratic House trials of Republicans, I am not looking forward to Republican investigations of Hunter Biden or President Joe Biden's handling of the border crisis. This agenda is not sound.
Look, the people with defensive knife wounds just got their own knife.
"Whoa whoa... let's be REASONABLE here!" *nervous laughter*
Here are just a few of my concerns. Some GOP candidates are either barely fit or altogether unfit for office. Democrats may be no better, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
Yet no mention of the guy in PA who had a stroke and can barely function.
But these are not normal times. Today, I don’t know how confident I am in divided government. If it’s going to work, Republicans must bring better ideas to the table, and both parties must be more open to bipartisanship.
Apparently, a booming economy, criminal justice reform, lower taxes, deregulation, no new wars, and energy independence are inferior ideas to the authoritarian shitshow we've seen for the past two years.
"I am not looking forward to Republican investigations of Hunter Biden or President Joe Biden’s handling of the border crisis."
Of course these are real issues that bear investigation, but whatevs.
Kids in cages? No, we don't want to even look INTO that! This is the flagship publication of Shikha Dalmia!
Sorry, Veronique, but “no.” Vague slogans like “two wrongs don’t make a right” and vague worries about the current environment do not add up to a rationale for supporting bipartisanship. You seem to have bought into the mystique that government exists to “do something” to help people. Not even after the parties have conspired to put people into the position where they need help in the first place! If I had any confidence that enough members of each party would suddenly break out with an acute case of common sense and pull the government back from the brink I might lean towards your prescription. But I have ZERO confidence in that. I also have ZERO confidence that the 25% of Republican voters and the 30% of Democratic voters will suddenly decide to vote against both parties in the upcoming elections. There is one – and ONLY one – possible solution to the “polarization is bad but bipartisanship is worse” trap we currently find ourselves in: ranked-choice, at-large election systems replacing the gerrymander-district-based, plurality-takes-all two-party-and-only-two-party system for electing representatives to Congress and the state legislatures. We should put all of our efforts into making that change now.
Ranked choice means that people can vote for extremists with impunity, because they can always fall back on the mainstream candidate. That is, provided they understand the system and how to vote in it at all to communicate their preferences: mostly, ranked choice voting just confuses voters.
Furthermore, even if it were desirable that Congress statistically represent the preferences of the American people (as opposed to representing a mainstream compromise), ranked choice voting wouldn't be the way to do it; instead, we'd need proportional representation. Proportional representation really does make sure that the two party system is destroyed, and every minority preference is represented in parliament; unfortunately, the consequences of that are usually disastrous.
You're either a useful idiot or you are deliberately trying to subvert the last shreds of democracy and sensible government we have.
"Ranked choice means that people can vote for extremists with impunity,"
They can vote for extremists now with impunity. There's a secret ballot, and that will continue. How do you propose to punish those who vote for candidates you disapprove of?
I'm sorry, I forgot I have to spell things out for you.
In our current simple plurality system, yes, you can vote for extremists, but you are throwing away your vote because your choice doesn't stand a chance. If you want to influence the outcome, you have to not only vote for who you prefer, but you also have to think about what other voters want, meaning that voters are forced to think about compromising as part of the voting process.
The current voting system makes voting for extremists pointless if you want to influence the outcome of elections; I propose we keep that system. If you consider that a "punishment", that's your problem.
"The current voting system makes voting for extremists pointless if you want to influence the outcome of elections"
I don't think you've thought this through. People vote for extremists like Nader, Buchanan or Perot etc, not because they want to influence the outcome of the election by electing their candidate, but to send a message, post their discontent with mainstream candidates, to the nation as a whole. Your notion that voting to influence the outcome is the only legitimate exercise of the franchise is ill conceived and wrong.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. People vote for extremists like Nader, Buchanan or Perot etc, not because they want to influence the outcome of the election by electing their candidate, but to send a message
But they don’t. I’ve made my thoughts on RCV clear, I don’t think it’s a democracy-killer or anything, I just have suggested that it pushes politics towards the poles– ie if a district leans blue, or leans red, it becomes solidly blue or solidly red.
Having said that, to your above statement, this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people to vote carefully and strategically if they believe that their vote might tip the victory of Al Gore away from George W. Bush (for instance).
What that percentage is, and how it tips elections is difficult to say. But to suggest everyone dutifully votes for their #1 in-the-gut preferred candidate, results be damned is just not true.
"I just have suggested that it pushes politics towards the poles– ie if a district leans blue, or leans red, it becomes solidly blue or solidly red."
It's possible, and not necessarily a bad thing. If the two main parties are polarized, this opens space for any third parties, which stand to gain most if this form of voting is adopted.
"Having said that, to your above statement, this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people to vote carefully and strategically"
I don't see why people wouldn't vote strategically (giving priority to a less preferred candidate) under the RCV system, if they wanted to. I really don't see what the fuss is about. The system gives voters the opportunity to more fully express their preferences on the candidates and their parties. Granted, it can lead to perverse results, and it's more complicated than the first past the post system, but the alternative, where voters express preference in paired sets of candidates, seems to lead to fewer perversities, but is a heck of a lot more complicated, requiring understanding of some rather heavy mathematics.
Yes, it does. That is why it's a bad thing, even if fools like you don't understand why.
As you said: they would vote strategically, with a new strategy, namely a strategy to get some third party into power.
You think that's a good thing. You are a fool.
" That is why it’s a bad thing"
What is a bad thing, and why? Spell it out for me, I'm not following you.
"to get some third party into power."
Again, what's wrong with that? I'm really not following you.
Yes, a few percent to every year. With ranked choice voting, those candidates would get a lot more votes and might accidentally actually get elected.
I made not comment about the "legitimacy" of people's motivations in voting for extremists.
You want ranked choice voting because you think it would result in a greater diversity of candidates getting elected, and I'm saying that that is the very reason I don't want it.
"and I’m saying that that is the very reason I don’t want it."
You want only candidates who are Democrats or Republicans to win, and no others, and that any system that gives third parties a chance at victory is inferior to the system that all but guarantees victory to the Dems or Reps. Is that the gist of it?
Besides, most Americans want to restore order at the border while also generally welcoming immigrants. Immigrants are a proven positive force in the U.S. economy. The country has plenty of space and 10.1 million job openings that native-born Americans seem uninterested in filling.
When there are 10.1 million jobs that Americans "seem uninterested in filling" it might be time to investigate why those Americans are unwilling to do those 10.1 million jobs while my sidewalk is LITERALLY covered in tents and swarming with meth addicts.
No, this isn't the 'fault' of immigrants swarming the border, this is the fault of American Elites who created and stoked this problem, and then continue to aggressively ignore the cause.
As always--
"Republicans! It would be best if you just let the Dems and the left get away with what they did to you and create policies that the Dems and the left would like'
Fuck you.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here……..>>> OnlineCareer1
The last "good" bipartisan thing that I can think of that occurred in the last several years was the First Step Act (criminal justice reform) passed under President Trump. Beyond that issue, and maybe drug reform, I can think of few positive "pro-liberty" bipartisan things that this President and the next Congress can get done. The days of Slick Willy and Gingrich are long over (and even those days are overrated).
I used to be a fan of gridlock and divided government, but I've become more skeptical over the years. It's true that no new laws might get passed, but the administrative state sails on unconcerned, and the bureaucrats are as much a threat to freedom as the politicians are.
They don't need new laws. They have phones and pens.
If you want to solve the problem of government prohibit it from initiating force.
Good god, do you actually think that such empty phrases are a meaningful contribution to political discussions? Are you that vapid?
I'd like that, but given that 95%+ of our countrymen disagree with that (or at least allow huge exceptions), that's sadly not happening. Solutions need to be more-focused. Giving the various government agencies less discretion and deference -- preferably none at all -- would be a big step. Taking as many things as possible out of the hands of the national government would also help a lot. I'm much less concerned about California initiating force than I am about DC.
Part of the problem is a real lack of moderates. Our election system with gerrymandered safe seats have shifted the importance of the primary election. This in turn selects for the more extreme candidate. Moderate centrist can work together on necessities and disagree on wanted but not required. Extremist left and right will not work together on anything.
The problem is that we have primary elections in the first place. If candidates were nominated by parties, we would get more moderate candidates, because parties nominate candidates that can win in the general election.
The original US system was well-designed: the federal government had strictly limited powers and no income tax, senators were appointed by state legislatures, and there were no primary elections.
Piece by piece, that system has been destroyed, with the predictable bad consequences.
Everything you write that you want done bipartisan would either be done better or have a better chance of being done at all by Republicans alone. Democrats would just be a drag.
Right? The party that spent years talking about repeal and replace and then couldn't do thing when they had the chance. The Republican party has spent so many years chasing out anyone with ideas, that they have nothing left.
"ideas" of using Gov-GUNS against citizens to get what they want...
^THAT is the very problem with Democrats. Its almost all basic Criminalistic greed with a topping of manipulation/deception.
Not all "ideas" are automatically good and MOST aren't when they require Gov-Guns.
This article *IS* the very *PROBLEM*...
Too MUCH "democracy" focus; not enough Constitutional Republic.
The USA IS NOT a "democracy"; It's a Constitutional Republic.
Size is the problem. Not [WE] mobs agreeing to suppress the masses more.
Nice! thank you so much! Thank you for sharing. Your blog posts are more interesting and informative.email marketing lists free
Agreed. The only nit I'll pick with your nit is this:
People that despise one another, should not have to live together.
I'd suggest that the only reason they despise one another is that they have to live together. A federal leviathan imposing its will on everyone universally is a surefire recipe to get people to hate the people who'd have that leviathan imposing it's will contrary to their wishes.
Although I agree with your platitude that people who hate each other should not have to live with each other, it doesn't apply to the political situation in America in any way. There is no way for the hyperpartisans to be separated politically, nor are they being forced to live with each other now. Part of the polarization trend has been that one group of partisans has been moving out of the districts controlled politically by the other group of partisans. There is, however, a completely pragmatic solution to peacefully resolving the worsening strife between them: ranked-choice, at-large election of representatives to the state legislatures and the Congress. This would permanently break the death-grip on the two party system that caused all of these problems in the first place.
It would do that in the sense that it would replace the two party system with a socialist one party system, which is why you are proposing it.
The two party system, two chamber system the US used to have is much preferable to any other democratic system in the world because it forced compromise at the party level and prevented extremists from ever getting into power; multiparty parliamentary democracies regularly slide into fascism and communism.
That's, of course, exactly why you hate the US system and why progressives have been attacking it for a century.
"I’d suggest that the only reason they despise one another is that they have to live together."
Unfortunately, people who have to live with each other eventually grow to despise each other. See the last 200 years of American history.