You must realize that you have kind of an inconsistent view of the efficacy of the oval office. When the republicans are in power, or are about to be, this is something to be feared, and they’ll turn the country into a banana republic, and they’ll curtail all civil rights. But when a democratic is in power, the presidency becomes this meaningless ceremonial role that can’t really do anything because of those darned republicans, and so you can’t really blame them for not making any meaningful change. This is clearly internally inconsistent. One of these two opinions is false. Either the presidency can be used to effect meaningful change, or it cannot. You can’t believe both.
I think the republicans show that the former is true. Whether you like it or not (I certainly don’t), whenever the republicans are in power they’re able to enact massive impactful changes (the changes which eventually led to the overturning of Roe v Wade are a good example). The reasons as to why the democrats do not enact such changes is up for debate, but the idea that they don’t because they can’t is demonstrably false.
It’s not inconsistent. We see it habitually. Republican power is oversized in the Senate, House, and arguably the Executive due to structural issues caused by our bicameral system and the cap on representatives. This results in the GOP having a much stronger majority control over all three branches - added also that Republican politicians toe the line more frequently for the radical things they want to push.
It isn’t an objective matter of how powerful or effective the Executive branch is, but also the power structures in the party in control. It is not a false dichotomy to think that Democrats struggle to pass impactful changes while on power, but the Republicans are able to do that more effectively while in power.
You must realize that you have kind of an inconsistent view of the efficacy of the oval office. When the republicans are in power, or are about to be, this is something to be feared, and they’ll turn the country into a banana republic, and they’ll curtail all civil rights. But when a democratic is in power, the presidency becomes this meaningless ceremonial role that can’t really do anything because of those darned republicans, and so you can’t really blame them for not making any meaningful change. This is clearly internally inconsistent. One of these two opinions is false. Either the presidency can be used to effect meaningful change, or it cannot. You can’t believe both.
I think the republicans show that the former is true. Whether you like it or not (I certainly don’t), whenever the republicans are in power they’re able to enact massive impactful changes (the changes which eventually led to the overturning of Roe v Wade are a good example). The reasons as to why the democrats do not enact such changes is up for debate, but the idea that they don’t because they can’t is demonstrably false.
This is a long-winded non answer.
How do Dems pass abortion protection laws without overwhelming control of the House, Senate, and Presidency?
It’s not inconsistent. We see it habitually. Republican power is oversized in the Senate, House, and arguably the Executive due to structural issues caused by our bicameral system and the cap on representatives. This results in the GOP having a much stronger majority control over all three branches - added also that Republican politicians toe the line more frequently for the radical things they want to push.
It isn’t an objective matter of how powerful or effective the Executive branch is, but also the power structures in the party in control. It is not a false dichotomy to think that Democrats struggle to pass impactful changes while on power, but the Republicans are able to do that more effectively while in power.