From Alan Bock
I didn't think so at the beginning of the evening when there was some question about just how big the Democratic takeover of the House was going to be (at this writing control of the Senate is still uncertain). But as the margin grew and as exit polls showed significant numbers of people saying the Iraq war was their top priority, my fond wish that this be seen as a negative referendum on the war in Iraq seems to be coming true.
I think there's also a desire on the part of the American people to have operative checks and balances. Under unitary government with a power-grabbing White House, Congress passed the military commission bill. It creates significant exceptions to the Great Writ of habeas corpus, which for 800 years has protected [people in english speaking countries and others influenced by them from being imprisoned arbitrarily without the government having to give a reason for it. The United States is right on the verge of moving decisively toward being a police state.
I don't know if a Democratic-majority Congress will rethink that (in between investigations into this and that). But I do think Americans have had it with unitary government.
Does that mean gridlock? If so, how glorious! The economy thrived under divided government through much of the 1990s and much of the 1980s. A divided government, unable to undertake major initiatives coming from either right or left, is a government somewhat less capable of doing harm to the American people. Marvelous!