It will be a good read for everybody deifying "a realpolitik grandmaster" Henry Kissinger how badly he failed in the role of Rockefeller's political adviser. His ineptitude in politics was borderline tragicomedic. This the best proof to me that a "professional politician" is really an oxymoron.
The rich are bad at politics more often than not, and their money can compensate for that only partially.
Georgie Washington was however a spectacular politician on his own, without a doubt.
Win Rockefeller was elected, and very popular.
I totally accept it if we're only counting from the start of true universal adult suffrage, including women and taking no account of melanin content of skin - whoever is first on that deserves it be known widely for their national pride. Was that the USA?
UK has had universal suffrage since 1928. It looks like Finland was the first in 1904.
Edit: New Zealand 1893. Go the Kiwis! Ka Mate!
Arguably we still don't, given what the republicans have done to subvert democracy in Florida.
And you ignore the other key point, which is that the US had no real national competitors near its borders, while other countries whose stability you discount did. That's the key point to American stability, not any world historical genius in drafting the Constitution.
America is by far the oldest nation with a presidency, and it's finally starting to collapse.
Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President simply does not square up with such things as the government shutdowns of 2013, 2018, and 2018/19, the Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, and it only goes on from there. Partisan polarization has made the checks and balances between the two elected branches more, not less relevant.
I don't care about the merits of Congressional prerogatives here, which is an entirely secondary point. The point is that the Founding Fathers believed that Congress would defend its own prerogatives against the executive. This has been proven false: a model where government is dominated by partisan prerogatives is far more descriptive of reality than one where branches-of-governments pursue their own prerogatives.
Your latter point--that a Republican Congress investigated and obstructed a Democratic President--is true, but it is, again, an indication that Congress is driven by the needs of the political parties who happen to be running it at the time, not as an institution in itself.
This is entirely contrary to what the vaunted Founding Fathers intended or expected. Not least because the main thinkers among them thought the system would prevent the development of political parties. The Constitution was theorized to deal with abstractions that don't correspond to reality, and it doesn't even consider the most important driver of politics and governance not only in the contemporary world but in the world that existed a year after it was ratified.
In a world where political parties are accepted as a given and inevitable, no one would write anything like the Constitution and expect it to be effective. And no one has: even after WW2, when the US was drafting constitutions for its defeated opponents, it went with documents entirely unlike our own.
I wasn't intending to.
> I don't care about the merits of Congressional prerogatives here, which is an entirely secondary point. The point is that the Founding Fathers believed that Congress would defend its own prerogatives against the executive. This has been proven false.... Congress is driven by the needs of the political parties who happen to be running it at the time, not as an institution in itself.
Got it, this is a better explanation and I think I agree with it.
> Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court
Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.
Sure they can. They can refuse to confirm his appointments, they can pass laws with a large enough supermajority to override his veto, and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority.
> What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.
Thus disproving this notion that Congress is powerless against the President. The President has the constitutional power to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.
The constitution is a deeply flawed document that relies on the acceptance of norms and generally good actors. Absent that you end up with a wannabe dictator like Trump acting basically unchallenged.
> and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority.
an act made much harder when the executive flouts subpoenas.
When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won.
Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before.
[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-...