Ron Fournier at the National Journal is all wistful that our government isn't more efficient at making decisions. He writes:
In Obama's case, the modern GOP is an obstructionist, rudderless party often held hostage by extremists. So … get over it. His response to The New York Times is another illustration that Obama and his liberal allies have a limited—and limiting—definition of presidential leadership.Let me suggest something. Our Constitution is designed to prevent government action where there is no consensus. That is a feature, not a bug. (It is also why liberals pushing unpopular ideas love to run to the courts because consensus is not required in that forum). It is not the government's job to fix "problems" over the objection of the People. If there is no consensus, the problem isn't with Congress, but with the proposed legislation.
... First, as Klein suggests, the U.S. political system faces enormous structural problems that make leadership challenging for any president. Chief among them is sophisticated redistricting that has helped create a polarized Congress packed with lawmakers with no incentive to compromise. Second, government austerity reduces the president's ability to bargain with Congress. Third, the democratization of politics—and of big money in particular—has weakened the party structures. That has weakened a president's powers that stem from his role as the titular party chief. Finally, the modern GOP is less willing than Democrats to compromise. There is something to Obama's complaint that virtually any policy he supports will be met by resistance.