To some extent the coattails effect does manifest, theoretically jetzt erst recht, but it's only relevant every four years, and if you can't get the electorate to see the bigger picture then - especially insofar as they aren't paying attention to executive branch minutiae anyway - they* will wind up routinely disappointed by their "Great (Wo)Man" candidate who ostensibly fails to live up to their expectations because they never seem to have the numbers even to ram the popular reforms through.
Which breeds cynicism, both-sidesism, and apathy. A fatal feedback loop if it remains in action at this juncture. We're probably about to put to the test which presidential disposition among "Better things are possible" and "I can't wave a magic wand" feels more disappointing when the legislature is stymied.
But the Dem establishment is to blame as well to some extent, for hyping the Presidency above all else and shunting the bulk of party/base resources toward the presidential races. And this even while failing to develop their grassroots, most dramatically when Obama dissolved his campaigning instrument-cum-community OfA (Organizing for Action) after 2008. Trump never stopped campaigning and energizing his grassroots organizations, and it's working about as well for him as anything he does. Looking back in time again, the Tea Party movement demonstrated the importance of an energized and on-message grassroots, even if that grassroots turned out to be mostly astroturfed by billionaires.
But attitudes are shifting. If the Democratic electorate gets away from blindly trusting state institutions and pining for bipartisan comity, we're on the right track. Hopefully the Kavanaugh confirmation signals a long-term decline in Democrats' comfort with the Supreme Court.
By the way, on the subject of Congress vs. President, because when writing sweeping comments you always miss something, re: my treatment of the Nixon years I want to attest that the Dem Congress certainly did not always get its way even when it had the votes, such as when Nixon vetoed a federally-funded universal childcare bill (less generous than Warren's I think).
The bill was just short of veto-proof, and the kicker is that Pat "Monster Mash" Buchanan was involved in shutting it down.
The goal was not just to kill the bill but also to bury the idea of a national child-care entitlement forever. "I insisted we not just say we can't afford it right now, in which case you get pilot programs or whatever," Buchanan said. The veto message was actually a toned-down version of what Buchanan had suggested -- he wanted to accuse the bill's drafters of "the Sovietization of American children." But it did the job Buchanan... had hoped it would do. It delivered the message that it was much more politically dangerous to work in favor of expanded child care than to oppose it.Child labor unions? Fighting adults? You mean like - THIS? Well shit, we have truly been consigned to the worst timeline.There was little public attention surrounding the bill at the time Congress was debating it. After the veto, though, the very idea of government-funded child care spawned a fantastic misinformation campaign, complete with rumors that any such efforts would inevitably lead to government indoctrination of small children, and child labor unions empowered to fight their parents.
On the other other hand, a timely example of the value of controlling legislatures is New York leftists breaking the mutually-gerrymandered hold on Albany in the 2018 elections, over the past 6 months passing one of the more extensive rafts of legislation in New York history, including the most ambitious decarbonization targets in the country - despite Andrew "The Machine" Cuomo remaining as governor. Though it would certainly be easier on New York City if one of his last two Democratic challengers had beat him in the primary.
Bookmarks