Divided Government

. Divided government arises when one or more legislative houses are controlled by the party opposing the executive. In contrast, a unified government exists when one party holds both the executive and legislative branches entirely. A divided government can create significant challenges for party operations and the overall functioning of government. For instance, fulfilling campaign promises becomes quite difficult because passing legislation typically requires the cooperation, or at least consensus, of both Congress and the president. Additionally, one party cannot easily claim success if the other has played a significant role, or if no progress is made at all. Party loyalty may also be tested, as individual politicians might find themselves needing to oppose their party's agenda to enhance their chances of reelection. A divided government can threaten government operations, though its full effects remain uncertain. For example, a significant divide between the parties can lead to government shutdowns. In 1976, a conflict between Republican President Gerald Ford and a Democrat-led Congress over funding for cabinet departments resulted in a ten-day government shutdown, although federal operations did not completely stop.

 However, in the 1980s, an interpretation by Republican President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general of a nineteenth-century law mandated a complete halt of federal operations until a funding dispute was settled. The willingness of the parties to collaborate and reach compromises is undeniably beneficial. Nevertheless, the past few decades have seen an increase in divided government. Since 1969, the U.S. electorate has elected a Congress aligned with the president's party in only seven out of twenty-three congressional elections. During George W. Bush’s first term, the Republican majority was so slim that resignations and defections allowed Democrats to gain control before the next election.

 A well-functioning government typically requires responsible decisions from both the executive and legislative branches. This responsiveness is challenging enough under a unified government. For instance, during Democrat Jimmy Carter's presidency (1977–1980), the government experienced five shutdowns despite both houses of Congress being under Democratic control, due to conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. Shutdowns are even more probable when the president and at least one legislative house are from opposing parties. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the federal government shut down eight times, with seven instances resulting from disagreements between Reagan and the Republican-controlled Senate on one side and House Democrats on the other, concerning issues like spending cuts, abortion rights, and civil rights. Similar conflicts and government shutdowns occurred during the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, as different parties controlled Congress and the presidency. In the initial years of the current trend of divided government, its threat appeared somewhat diminished due to a strong degree of bipartisanship and compromise. In the 1960s and 1970s, many pieces of legislation received substantial support from both parties. Most Congress members maintained moderate voting records, and regional variances within parties facilitated bipartisanship on numerous issues.

Until the 1980s, Republicans from the northern and midwestern states tended to be quite progressive, advocating for racial equality, workers' rights, and agricultural subsidies. In contrast, Southern Democrats were often socially and racially conservative, with a strong emphasis on states' rights. There was a considerable amount of cross-party collaboration on these matters. However, in recent decades, the presence of moderates in both chambers of Congress has diminished. This decline has created challenges for party leaders to collaborate on significant issues and has made it harder for members of the minority party in Congress to reach policy agreements with a president from the opposing party. The 

Over the last thirty years, the dynamics between the two political parties have shifted dramatically, with a decrease in the number of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans holding office. As political moderates—those whose beliefs fall in the middle of the ideological spectrum—depart from political parties at all levels, the ideological divide between the parties has widened, leading to a phenomenon known as party polarization. Essentially, both organizationally and within government, Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly different from one another. In Congress, this shift means that fewer members have mixed voting patterns; instead, they tend to vote more consistently along party lines and are more likely to align with their party leadership. This polarization also results in a growing number of moderate voters disengaging from party politics. Many are becoming independents or are only voting in general elections, thus not participating in the selection of party candidates during primaries.