By Daniel Levisohn

The McCain campaign and local Republicans have been arguing that voters should be wary of electing too many Democrats this election style, thus giving the party a “blank check” to enact its policies. The Democrats themselves are also sensitive to the opportunities and the risks of having complete control over the government. As the New York Times notes, the Democrats may have a historic chance to enact a progressive agenda:

If Mr. Obama defeats Mr. McCain, he could be the first president since Jimmy Carter to enter office with wide control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate, which in theory would give Democrats the power to overcome procedural hurdles that have bedeviled both parties in recent years.

I share the anxiety of voters who are nervous about one party rule. I believe that checks and balances force politicians to make necessary compromises. I certainly think that Republican hegemony under Bush lead to a lot of terrible decisions and policies. Voters agreed in 2006, voting dozens of Republicans out of office and giving Democrats control of Congress. Two years later, they may harbor enough anger at Republicans to boot many more of them out of Washington.

I’m sure the thought that Democrats could take the presidency and gain more seats in the House and Senate keeps some of you awake at night out of fear. Susan suggested it may be time for Conservatives to go John Galt (I think the Liberal version of this suggestion is that everyone ought to move to Canada). I personally think a big Republican defeat will force the GOP to move beyond Reagan and generate some new ideas. But will it also inevitably force the Democrats to overreach? What do you all think?

This week's previous posts (most recent first): Crazy As Usual, Don't Kill the Messenger, Divided We Stand, Why Is Race a Factor, Socialism Rules, The Politics of Destruction