BluePhantom
Educator (of liberals)
- Thread starter
- #101
Using the logic that Clinton got credit for Congress's achievements, then Ronald Reagan got credit for his Congress's achievements also.
To some degree that is absolutely true, particularly during Reagan's first term. By his second term however, as I pointed out in my OP, Congress did what Reagan said regardless of political partisanship. Reagan won re-election by an electoral vote count of 525-13. It was the most lopsided victory in history. No one was going to dare oppose him after that.
While I agree with much of your above post, Clinton wasn't reduced to a figurehead president either.
I think your assessment is fair. Certainly Clinton won the battle of popular opinion after the shutdown of government and it forced the GOP to play a little less rough. I would certainly agree that during his administration there was a period of time (roughly 1996-1998) wherein both sides were really forced to work together because Clinton realized he had to make concessions to the GOP Congress, and Congress realized that getting too pissy with Clinton wasn't going to do them a lot of favors politically. I would argue that such a scenario is probably in the best interests of the American people as opposed to total domination by either side. Absolute power corrupts absolutely so the old saying goes.
By 1998 when the sexual misconduct allegations had grown to its breaking point and evidence of perjury in the Paula Jones Grand Jury came to light, the GOP went right for the throat. Liberals get pissed about that but let's be honest; they did the same thing with Nixon. That's just the political game and as I have pointed out several times, that kind of shit has been going on since even before the Constitution was signed.
I think the point I was trying to make, and the one that really needs to be emphasized, is that sometimes the president is in a position and has all the pieces in place through which he can have a significant impact on the economy and domestic affairs, but in reality he is usually not. People tend to simply look at the president and assign blame or credit without taking into consideration these other things we have discussed in this thread that frequently put the president in a position where he is really powerless to do much in regards to domestic and economic affairs.
If we as a society wish to make educated choices regarding government and who to elect, it's imperative that this simple concept is fully understood so that blame or credit can be laid in the proper place. All too often, that's not what happens.