Are Party Politics Good For Governing?

As I write this, Peggy Lautenschlager is giving her concession speech. I can't help but feel a twang of guilt as I voted for Falk. I stand by my choice, but really it was only motivated by who could win in November. Lautenschlager has that pesky drunk driving incident which I don't personally care about, but it could prove a problem in facing the opposition in November. Peggy has served Wisconsin well having looked after environmental, consumer, and minority rights , but I feel that Kathleen Falk will do just as good in the position. This incident though, does have me questioning something that I have been wrestling with: are party politics good for governing? I'm slowly starting to think no. I will be interesting if in the course of this course my mind will change?

We have talked about party politics bringing an added check into the system. While this maybe true, it does ignore what government is supposed to do. It would be nice for government to finally solve the problems that face our country (let alone the state!) today. (Okay...I would be happy for steps that accomplish putting us in the right direction.) We need to solve a huge income disparity that affects not only those on the borderline of poverty, but those in the middle class as well. It is no longer the case that one only hears of a single mother on food stamps barely able to keep afloat, but now middle class homes are having to deal with cuts in health care as well as outsourcing. These are just a couple of issues that face us today and need to be dealt with. While we may disagree with the solutions to the problems (or wither government has a role in it, though I must point out that because private business doesn't want to work on these problems anymore that we do have them now as an issue), they are still problems that need solutions. Unfortunately I don't see any in sight. With the party system as it is, no real solutions are offered, or at least survive long enough to be considered. Because each side is looking for electoral gains and the dream of total control to implement change, the problems of today are put aside for that future. Universal health care (if that is what is needed) will never come about because that might solve the problem and therefore take it away as an election issue that could muster up votes for either side.

I think Washington was right when he warned of parties taking over. What ever checks parties put on the political system are minor when compared to the hindrances they put on governing. While at one time I would never have thought this, constant study into government and politics has made me more reluctant to say that we have it right (though I will not say that any other country has it perfect either).

Finally a pre-rebuttal to my critics:
I do not want to fully lessen the accomplishments of government, however, a lot of what we consider greatness was just a stopgap measure to prevent true societal change. I consider FDR to be one the best, if not the best, presidents, but I will admit that his New Deal was setup to bring the public back into liking to the system rather than turning to socialism (which was a growing minority at the time). As for the Voting Rights Act, well this year a few in the house decided that it was unfairly targeted at the southern states (a big duh should be echoing throughout cyberspace right now). Of course the act was put into place to correct flaws in a problem that was solved bit by half-assed bit and still today the problem exists (take the push for voter IDs, it is a poll tax since you must pay for an ID).
I think a government that offers true solutions, or good steps to the solution would be a welcomed change. I also think that the current system of parties will not offer any solutions to today's or tomorrow's problems.