Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-1990 [Paperback]

Professor David R. Mayhew (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 25, 1993

In this prize-winning book, which analyzes data from a 44-year period, Mayhew refutes the commonly held myth that the American national government functions effectively only when one political party controls the presidency and Congress. This edition has a new epilogue covering 1991-1992.

Product Details

• Paperback: 240 pages
• Publisher: Yale University Press (August 25, 1993)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0300048378
• ISBN-13: 978-0300048377
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.1 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,408,443 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Divided we govern, July 5, 2001

By 

Yann Sommer (Stephenville, Texas United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-1990 (Yale Fastbacks) (Hardcover)

Divided government - when congress is being controlled by a party other than the presidency is - opposed to unified government, has become more and more frequent in the post World War II era. Some politicians, most probably those engaged in one political party's activities, claim that it is counter productive, as a lot of laws are being prohibited to become enacted. David R. Mayhew argues that this claim is, as he says "wrong, or at least mostly or probably wrong". In his book Divided we govern: Party control, Lawmaking, and Investigations he investigates the productivity of the U.S. Congress, in terms of passed laws and investigation, during times of united and divided government between 1946 - 1990. David R. Mayhew is a Sterling Professor of Political Sciences at Yale University and has been an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow. In his award winning book, he thoroughly examines every "important" law and investigation passed in those times, provides the reader with detailed charts and explanations, and explores whether the state of government at that time - unified or divided - made a difference.

Mayhew starts with looking at major investigations done by the Congress. He selects those "'exposure probes' of the executive branch that draw considerable publicity". He finds an investigation to have drawn considerable publicity, once the New York Times covered it on twenty, not necessarily consecutive, days as a front-page story. Those thirty-one chosen investigations range from major known events, such as the Watergate break-in and cover-up or McCarthy's probe of the State Department and Army, to less severe events like the Billy Carter probes. All of those investigations gave a president major trouble, but no pattern is to be found whether the government was unified or divided. Mayhew then sets a pattern for analyzing "important" laws passed by congress, consisting of two different sweeps, that cover a lot of the basic legislature, each sweep having its own set of factors. The first sweep, bringing in 211 laws, was determined by looking at the New York Times and the Washington Post's end-of-session wrap-up story. The second sweep, consisting of enactments that had a long-term effect, rather than just a promising effect as they were passed, brings in another 203 laws into the analysis. Some laws fit into both sweeps and some are only applicable to one or neither one of them. All laws fitting in to one of the sweeps is a designated "important" law, which results in 267 laws to be deemed important or significant. After providing detailed charts of every single "important" law passed, which show if they were passed in either a divided or a unified government, again, almost no pattern emerged regarding party control (12.8 acts were passed during unified congressional years, contrasting to 11.7 acts in divided sessions). Some Congresses contributed more and some less enactments, which can mostly be related to the public's moods. Mayhew explains this phenomenon with the factor of incumbency; most senators and house members seek re-election, and therefore try to please their constituents by passing appropriate laws. Thus, the factor of time plays a major role in when a law becomes enacted, regardless of party control. Mayhew underlines that, despite the importance of party differences, and the differences between their programs, the only patterns to be seen when analyzing the important acts passed, is the so called "100 day honeymoon" phase (after the president got elected) which leads to more laws being passed in the first two years of a presidency rather than the last two. In addition, the variable he calls "event-driven", depending on the public's moods and the needs of time. For example the NATO treaty in 1949, the creation of NASA in 1958, just after the Soviets orbited Sputnik and the drug regulation in 1962, just after the thalidomide tragedy. It is quite obvious that hose laws were passed during a specific two-year period rather than earlier or later. Mayhew comes to the conclusion that, although party control in the congress as well as in the presidency play a major role in American Politics, a government can not be assumed to be less productive during times of divided government. Mayhew provides the reader with lots of thoroughly done research, presented in a form where it is easy to see the patterns, if any, emerging. He then spends a lot of time explaining his findings, and until the end forces the reader to rethink their biases they had when starting the book. He illustrates his points on some very plausible examples, by questioning each time why the concerned law or investigation happened, and not only summing up numbers. Weighing a lot of different factors, ranging from importance, point of time, public's interest, and last but not least, party control, he concludes that divided control of the government does not necessarily lead to gridlock. Step by step, he carefully builds up explanations of his thesis, and leaves behind a lot of thinking for the reader; nonetheless he does a very good job in convincing the reader of his point.

As a conclusion, Mayhew states that the government changes with the waves influenced by the media and public moods, has its ups and downs and may face gridlock for some period of time, but moves towards deliberation. It is not the parties who have control over what happens; rather the people of the United States do. I wholeheartedly agree with his point, even though sometimes it may be just wishful thinking, and people have a negative attitude towards the non-productiveness of government, but the idea stands, and finally it is what politics are all about; large groups of people that share ideas and opinions, and uniting them into a nation. I certainly hope that Mayhew will be proven right over and over again, as the people of the United States could only hope for having more and more power over the government; since this is what the framers envisioned when writing the constitution.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent analysis, well-written, October 6, 2004

By 

Newsman78 "newsman78" (New York, NY United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-1990 (Paperback)

Mayhew, as usual, provides a clear analysis together with good writing -- unusual for political science, unfortunately.

The basic argument is that divided government is not as bad as we usually assume. Through analyzing the passage of major pieces of legislation over the post-World War II era, Mayhew shows how significant things happen even when Congress and the president belong to different parties (or when Congress is itself divided).

Of course, this can't take into account the quality of that legislation or its ideological content. Presumably those are affected by who is in power, where, and when. But to argue that "nothing happens" and that there is "gridlock" during periods of divided government is simply incorrect.

A simple example, occuring after the book was written: Clinton and the 1996 Republican Congress. After a bruising fight over the budget and 2 government shutdowns, the Congress passed a flurry of important legislation at the end of the 1996 session -- bills increasing the minimum wage, providing health insurance portability, reforming welfare, and others.

Highly recommended to anyone interested in the subject. It should also be made required reading for journalists who still haven't figured this one out.

4.0 out of 5 stars Divided we govern, July 5, 2001

By 

Yann Sommer (Stephenville, Texas United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-1990 (Yale Fastbacks) (Hardcover)

Mayhew states that the government changes with the waves influenced by the media and public moods, has its ups and downs and may face gridlock for some period of time, but moves towards deliberation. It is not the parties who have control over what happens; rather the people of the United States do. I wholeheartedly agree with his point, even though sometimes it may be just wishful thinking, and people have a negative attitude towards the non-productiveness of government, but the idea stands, and finally it is what politics are all about; large groups of people that share ideas and opinions, and uniting them into a nation. I certainly hope that Mayhew will be proven right over and over again, as the people of the United States could only hope for having more and more power over the government; since this is what the framers envisioned when writing the constitution.