A Lesson in Civics for Liberals

[BluePhantom]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

While I would sort of agree with that, the president's ability to move his agenda is part of what makes him successful or not. Reagan did pretty well with a Democratic Congress. The best was probably LBJ, who knew where the bodies were buried and wasn't shy to let people know. Obama has been a wash-out with his own party, letting Dems set his agenda, much less with the GOP, whom he has simply alienated from the get go.

 

[BluePhantom]

While I would sort of agree with that, the president's ability to move his agenda is part of what makes him successful or not.

Hmmmm.....I guess I would say that "success" is relative to time. What I mean is history has a way of changing its mind about presidents. JFK for example; you know...history has been very kind to JFK. In reality his foreign policy was disastrous, he only got one major piece of legislation through Congress (posthumously I might add), and politically he really emboldened Khrushchev. People like to think that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a United States victory but in reality it wasn't. At the end of the day the Soviets had what they started with and we were down one missile shield in Turkey. I have even read some books where Khrushchev stated that he placed the missiles in Cuba because after his meeting with Kennedy in Vienna he viewed Kennedy as a weakling and "felt sorry for the American people" that we had an incompetent president. History remembers JKF of course as such an excellent president although at the time his popularity was beginning to wane and many political historians feel his chances for re-election were zero at the time he was killed.

FDR, as another example. Liberals love to give credit to the New deal for getting America out of the depression and love to heap the blame on Hoover. Well the New Deal was simply Hoover's policies renamed. FDR campaigned about how terrible Hoover's policies were and how they were to blame for the depression, and after he was elected he continued those precise policies under different names. Most economists today of course will tell you that the New Deal stopped the bleeding but prolonged recovery (much the same as we are seeing now). Indeed, if Hitler had not invaded Poland, FDR's chances for re-election were equally zilch. FDR was a fantastic wartime president, but as far as economics he sucked and his programs have bankrupted this nation. Still, he is remembered as an incredible president.

Nixon....if not for Watergate he would likely be considered one of the best and most powerful presidents this nation has ever had. In historical context Watergate was far less of a big deal really than Fast and Furious, Iran-Contra, and many other scandals. I tend to think it was the timing of Watergate really. It was the final nail in the coffin for the people's trust in government. After JFK and LBJ the people were starting to lose trust and faith in government and Watergate just killed any trust they had left. I think in today's atmosphere it would be a scandal, of course, but probably nothing that would cost a president the White House. Then again, presidents learned from watergate. When you face a scandal you find someone who is willing to take the blame and fall on their sword for the president in exchange for a light sentence at a country club prison and a hefty secret bank deposit in the Caymans. I think Bill Clinton said it best when he said "The time has come for America to recognize the greatness of Richard Nixon." But still history remembers him as one of the worst presidents we have ever had.

I think you are correct in your statement, but I think history has a way of changing the story sometimes.