Liberals find governing hard

Erick Erickson:

Chris Cillizza made me laugh out loud last evening when I read his column, which opens with a question: “Is it possible for a president — any president — to succeed in the modern world of politics?”

There is nothing new under the sun, including this question.

On January 19, 2010, I wrote about the ungovernability of the American Republic. At that time, Barack Obama lamented the filibuster was making the nation ungovernable. Liberal commentators were up in arms over how ungovernable the nation was.

Liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan noted at the time, “[I]f America cannot grapple with its deep and real problems after electing a new president with two majorities, then America’s problems are too great for Americans to tackle.”

The fact of the matter is, the last time liberals and traditional media sources were asking the question, they were asking it while Jimmy Carter was President. It was the penultimate moment of the Carter Presidency when, breaking out of the echo chamber, liberals in the media began to openly ponder the ungovernability of the American Republic and whether the Presidency was too big for one man.

Turns out the Republic was just fine. It wasn’t that the Presidency was too big for one man. It was that the particular occupant of the office was too small for the job. When Reagan became President, the question was rendered moot.

... 

There is more.

It was also during the Carter administration that liberals started talking about the inevitable decline of the US along with the rise of the Soviets.  Boy, were they wrong about that.  Ten years after Carter lost the Soviets evaporated and Reagan had won the Cold War.  I think the problems with liberals is they think a strong America is the problem and not the answer.  They want to let the UN decide where intervention is needed.  That is like giving members of a co-op a veto on buying furniture, and then wondering why things look so seedy.