Divided We Govern Mayhew Analysis

Divided We Govern Response Paper
Divided We Govern was written by David R. Mayhew addresses the American government and the topic of united and divided party control. Throughout the essay, the author tried to talk about unified and divided control of the government from both views with five questions. The first view is that a united government allows the decisions of the country to be more effective in enacting laws, being held accountable, good government administration, better foreign policy decisions, and more benefits for the “non-rich” citizens of the United States (188). As Randall B. Ripley said, “To have a productive majority in the American system of government the President and a majority of both houses must be from the same party” (181). The second view is that a divided party control is just as effective as a unified party control of the government. Analysts John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson said, “When governments of quite different political combinations all fail to perform effectively, it is worth considering whether the problem is the government itself and not the people or parties that run it”
Mayhew argues that a divided government should not affect the enacting law process because “democracy can function well enough as an assortment of decentralized, unconnected incursions into public affairs” (182). In addition, Mayhew assures the readers that “micro-management” was not a result of only a divided government, but a result of a divided government and an “unusual shock to the system such a Watergate” (184). The reason why a divided government is ill-viewed is because it is usually associated with negative events in the American history. A divided government is not supposed to be viewed negatively because, unlike in the British government, political parties “seem to play more of a role as ‘policy factions’” than government instruments