What would one-party rule look like? If a single political party could run things for at least a generation, could we then look at the results after that time and determine how good or bad those policies were?

With respect to the Presidency of the United States, it's hard to do that. The party in power changes so often. However, for many large cities, the party in power has been there for 50 years or more (with the occasional 1-term opposition party exception). It's much easier to make a determination in these cases. And even with a state governor of the opposite party, mayors do have enough power to minimize the governor's influence.

So who's been in charge, and how has it worked out? Listen in, and leave your own feedback!

Mentioned links:

Moody's downgrades Chicago debt to 'junk' with negative outlook (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102650351)

Following City, Chicago Public Schools Credit Rating Junked (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/13/following-city-chicago-public-schools-credit-rating-junked/)

Mayor of Chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Chicago) [Wikipedia]

List of mayors of Detroit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit) [Wikipedia]

List of mayors of Baltimore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Baltimore) [Wikipedia]

Los Angeles homelessness rises 12 percent amid slow economic recovery (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-homelessness-rises-12-percent-amid-slow-031806368.html)

Mayor of Los Angeles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Los_Angeles) [Wikipedia]

Hogan funds pensions, but nothing more for schools (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-hogan-announcement-20150514-story.html#page=1)

Baltimore Received $1.8 Billion from Obama’s Stimulus Law (http://freebeacon.com/issues/baltimore-received-1-8-billion-from-obamas-stimulus-law/)

Show transcript

Chicago, Illinois; the safest city in the US because of its strict gun control laws. Heh, no, not really. It’s got some of the highest gun crime in the country in spite of, or perhaps because of, it’s strict gun control laws. Gun control is one of those things that liberals insist works in spite of the reality to the contrary.

Here’s another: in spite of Chicago being a liberal paradise – not having a single Republican governor for over 80 years since 1931 – somehow the city’s economy is crumbling. It’s Democrats who keep insisting that they, and not Republicans, know how to bring the poor out of their situation, and believe that if we only spend enough money on a problem, it’ll get solved by government. And yet Moody’s Investor Service, which rates, among other things, the municipal bonds of cities, has downgraded Chicago’s credit rating to junk level. It also said that the city’s future outlook is negative, which I guess means that someday the credit rating could drop to “extra junkâ€, “junkierâ€, or maybe “double secret junkâ€.

I’ve mentioned Detroit, Michigan in the past. They’ve had Democratic mayors since 1962; about 30 years less than Chicago, but still over half a century. And yet the economy and infrastructure have seen better days. The city of Baltimore, Maryland was in the headlines for riots over the death of a black youth in police custody, and the state of its economy came to the fore during that; an economy where poverty was still rampant. And its mayors? Only 1 Republican since 1947.

In all these cases, and many others, the promise of liberal policies has not lived anywhere close to expectations. It has been said (a lot) that one definition of ‘insanity’ is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Now, this might be a crazy idea, but what if cities like these started voting in Republicans for a change? If half a century of single (or nearly-single) party rule hasn’t helped, how about giving some new ideas a chance? This would mean giving them a shot for more than 1 or two terms, of course.