"Our Unrealistic Hopes for Presidents"

[applegrove]

Our Unrealistic Hopes for Presidents

by Brendan Nyhan at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/our-unrealistic-hopes-for-presidents.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

"SNIP.....................



A result is what the political scientist Richard Skinner calls the partisan presidency. In this era, presidents are dividers, not uniters (to reverse George W. Bush’s famous phrase); their public appeal is deeply polarized along party lines and they depend overwhelmingly on the support of co-partisans in Congress to enact legislation. They are particularly vulnerable to obstruction from the opposition party, which can withhold support as congressional Republicans have done, denying the president the imprimatur of bipartisanship and producing legislative gridlock for which the president is often blamed.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

That’s why it’s a mistake to personalize Mr. Obama’s failures so much, as his critics often do. Critics suggest that Mr. Obama is too aloof and hasn’t done enough to solicit Republican support or build relationships with legislators. Both may be true, but as John Harwood recently noted in The Times, Bill Clinton’s more successful outreach to his opponents didn’t keep him from getting impeached. Likewise, George W. Bush was more gregarious than Mr. Obama, but it didn’t make him any more popular among Democrats once the post-9/11 glow had worn off.


It’s a common mistake to attribute other people’s behavior to their inherent characteristics in this way. We seem especially prone to this pattern, which is known as fundamental attribution error, with presidents. But as recent history shows, our current political system tends to produce division and conflict no matter the circumstances.

...........

As we approach the next presidential campaign, we need to stop asking who can achieve the unity that has eluded Mr. Obama. For better or worse, the partisan presidency is here to stay. There are some people the next president will never get, as Mr. Rock puts it. The question we should ask instead is whether the candidate we choose will — or can — govern well without their support.



.....................SNIP"

[Horse with no Name]

1. I guess I just wonder why when we are in the majority in both houses

their President can accomplish anything he wants by any means necessary.

When we are in the majority in one house, we can accomplish nothing.


Just doesn't make sense.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. Both parties are on the same side, the corporate side. That is why.