DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. A GOOD THING?

Amidst all the recent bad news and pessimism, there may (and I emphasize the word "may") be a bit of good political news on the horizon. We may be heading toward a divided federal government, where the US president and at least one house of congress are controlled by different political parties.

FiveThirtyEight, a feature on the ABC News website, predicts with a relatively high degree of certainty that after the upcoming November 6 midterm election, Democrats will control the House of Representatives, while Republicans will retain control of the Senate. With Republican President Donald Trump heading the executive branch, this will definitely fulfill the definition of "divided government."

And why is this a good thing?  Two words, "balanced budget." The last time we had a run of balanced budgets was 1998 to 2001, all presented by Democratic President Bill Clinton while under the constitutional restraint of a Republican House and Senate. It seems divided governments are capable of doing what single party governments (where the president and congress are both controlled by one political party) are not.

Of course, it doesn't always work. Democratic President Barack Obama had the Republicans in charge of at least one house of congress for the majority of his presidency, yet he never presented a balanced budget.  However, at least in recent US history, a balanced budget has never been presented and approved by a single party government.

Now, I may be grasping at straws here, but I'm determined to find optimism where I can. Perhaps, with President Trump and a Republican Senate stopping new, expensive programs from starting up, and a Democratic House stopping expensive tax cuts, we can at least move in the correct economic direction: toward a balanced federal budget.

ANOTHER CASUALTY IN THE PC WAR

NBC News host Megyn Kelly appears to be on her way to unemployment and, once again, it's over on-air, politically incorrect comments.

Kelly said that, back when she was a kid, wearing blackface was okay "as long as you were dressing up as a character." She also defended Luann de Lesseps, of the Real Housewives of New York, who may have darkened her skin, and who definitely wore an oversized Afro wig, when she dressed up as Diana Ross.

Those opinions, apparently, were enough to get Kelly fired. She had, in the NBC executives' eyes, committed an unpardonable sin. She had voiced PC heresy.

Kelly apologized, twice. Once by text and once on-air. The latter was in front of a live audience who gave her a standing ovation.

It was not enough for the people in power. What could have been a learning moment became another attempt to squelch debate and silence someone with an unpopular opinion.

Supreme Court

I have no idea whether Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford were telling the truth at the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings. They both came across as believable as they told vastly conflicting stories about Kavanaugh's alleged misbehavior as a teenager.

I am afraid, however,  that we have seen the nature of future hearings and they won't be pretty. Whenever a man is nominated for a high position, he will be bombarded with accusations that are nearly impossible to defend against. If the opposition does not have the votes to stop him outright, they will bring out wronged women (or if he is gay, wronged men) to try and keep him from confirmation.

This time it was the Democrats behind the accusations. But I'm sure the Republicans, whenever they are in the minority, will be every bit as open to such tactics.

As to Kavanaugh's tenure on the Court, I am cautiously optimistic. I am somewhat hopeful that he will help lead the Court back to interpreting the Constitution with an eye toward original intent and to recognizing individual rights.

We will see.