With roughly 13 months before the election, the Democrats seem poised to reclaim the White House and increase their margins in the House and Senate.
This should not be seen as a prediction. Events on the ground in Iraq, wedge issues and the Republican Party's well-documented superiority at winning elections during the past quarter-century strongly suggest that premature prognostications are essentially that.
But let us, for the moment, assume Democrats indeed will run the election table in 2008. Then what?
Will the dark clouds that cover America break? Will the sun rise? Will birds chirp as all take to the streets singing "Happy Days are Here Again"? Or will something less glorious occur?
Among the myriad lessons of what not to do that the current administration magnanimously will leave us will be the pitfalls when one branch of government controls everything.
Four years as the majority in the House and Senate, with a Republican in the White House, and by extension control of the courts suggest the legacy of George W. Bush may be felt for the next 25 years. The natural yearning of Democrats undoubtedly will be to offer a correction.
Some things -- such as Iraq, the Patriot Act, judicial appointments and tax cuts being made permanent -- definitely need a change of direction. However, it would be shortsighted to view this as solely the Republicans' doing; the bipartisan culture of arrogance also paved the way to where we are now.
In lieu of Democrats controlling at least one house of Congress, arrogance stood proxy in their place holding a false mirror that reflected an image that replaced patriotism with nationalism. Republicans had the votes; they needed only to give lip service to reaching out to the other side.
The results of this form of government, in my view, have been catastrophic for the nation. Going forward, should Democrats find themselves in a similar situation of power, can we afford to assume they will demonstrate the type of contrition sorely missing from Republicans?
To believe this is possible is to also conclude nothing is wrong with asking a recovering alcoholic with only three days sobriety to meet you at the local bar because you're running late.
Historically, major reforms tend to last longer with a divided government. The necessity of bipartisanship to get things done tends to move both parties toward the center. The Reagan tax laws of 1981 and 1986 were approved by a Democratic House of Representatives and largely have survived. Likewise, Clinton and a Republican Congress approved welfare reform in 1996.
Neither example represents legislative nirvana, but they do reflect an unstated checks and balances on potential political extremism. On the heels of the 2002 mid-term elections, the president no longer was compelled to take moderate positions or work with the Democrats.
Moreover, divided government has proven to be less likely to engage in war. The most glaring recent example of this is Iraq. But Democratic presidents, approved by a Democratic-led Congress, initiated all four wars in the 20th century that lasted more than a few days.
Republicans, based on the last six years, do not deserve to be the majority party in Congress or the party controlling the Oval Office. But can Democrats avoid the type of arrogance that has Republicans reeling and that history strongly indicates is not possible?
Assuming things continue on their current path, how will Democrats rise above the arrogance naturally created by united government?
This is the challenge presented to the American people. During the past 50 years, divided government has been the preferred choice. Strange as it may seem, political tension seems advantageous.
Being in lockstep does not necessarily mean that one is right. It just means everyone is headed in the same direction, even if that direction is toward the edge of the cliff.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at 510-208-6417.