A couple thoughts inspired by John McCain’s closing argument to the voters, which is that electing Barack Obama president would recklessly place both Congress and the executive in the hands of the Democratic Party.
First, what’s wrong with united party government? Through most of our history it has been the norm (from 1900 to 1968, for example, the same party controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress for all but eight years). The main benefit of having one party in charge is that in the next election voters will know which party to credit if things go well or to blame if things go poorly. That’s healthy for democratic accountability.
Second, all three branches of the federal government are up for grabs on November 4, not just the two that are on the ballot. Historically, vacancies on the Supreme Court have occurred at a rate of roughly one every two years. In both the Clinton and Bush presidencies, however, the rate has been only one every four years. As a consequence, five of the current members of the Court will be over 70 during the next president’s first year in office.
The three justices whom Court-watchers say are closest to retirement — John Paul Stevens (88), Ruth Bader Ginsberg (75), and David Souter (69, with the odometer about to click over) — are all liberals. If Obama and a Democratic Senate are elected, the current close balance on the Court is likely to be preserved. If McCain wins, the Court can’t help but become more conservative.
As it happens, McCain may get my vote. I’m still undecided, finding much to admire in both candidates. But whichever one I decide to support, I plan to vote for his party’s nominees for Congress as well. Between now and 2012 I want to know who’s in charge.
