. . . divided government. I must say that I'm pretty happy about Tuesday's results, because it returns us to the state in which I think we function best: with Congress and the Presidency in the hands of different parties. It's more common than one might suppose; in 34 of the 54 years since Eisenhower was elected for his first term ('52), at least one branch of Congress was in hands different than the executive branch, and for my money the years in which that has not been the case (60-68, 76-80, 93-94, and 2001-06) have not been distinguished by great statesmanship or great policy-making. It's something of a cliche, I know, but it's also true -- when the government's divided, everybody is fighting for the Center, and the Center is the place, in my book, where solutions are most likely to be found to most problems (if they can be found at all).
[Welfare reform is probably the best illustration of the phenomenon; Clinton never gets that through a Democratic Congress, because it pisses off too many of the Democrats' core constituents. But they need the Center -- and now, 10 years on, it looks like they've got it -- temporarily, at least].
It is weird -- to me, anyway -- to contemplate that this result is precisely the one that parliamentary systems cannot ever reach (because by definition the executive and legislative branches must all be in the same hands).