Yes, and this is intended, as Congress is the Legislative Branch of the US Government, and the POTUS is the Executive Branch. Note the President cannot submit bills to Congress, but must originate from the Congress itself. What you're saying about what legislation gets passed is accurate. Most major legislation only passes when the same party is in power in both branches...the Civil Rights Act, the New Deal, the Affordable Care Act, etc.
I understand that the phrase 'most powerful man in the world' isn't 100% correct about the President, but while it is critical that each branch does their job - it is critical that each branch does their job
. Congress submitting only bills to the POTUS that they know will be vetoed is just as irresponsible as a President coming out and declaring that any bill submitted to him by the opposing party will be vetoed. Partisan politics cannot carry the day. In the end, government must function. This is why I have a bit of a Berserk Button over people saying Obama never got anything done. He never got anything done because the Republicans
didn't want him doing anything. To quote Senate Leader McConnell: "Our top priority is to deny President Obama a second term." Obstructionism if ever I heard it.
Dismantle? No. Slow it to a stop? Absolutely.
In the end, is there really all that much difference? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest of the Freedomites started chanting 'states rights,' with their stance on reducing the size of the national government. And I seem to recall...something...that happened when a bunch of states started prioritizing states rights over the welfare of people...what was it?
That's not at all likely, as the ideological agendas of both parties are becoming both more extreme and more hard-line. Personally, I think it's more likely a new centrist political party will slowly emerge and evolve as the two current parties further diverge. This has happened before in US politics, when the Whig party went extinct in the mid-19th century.
And were replaced, eventually, by the Republicans. Which would make it historically ironic if the Republicans
were also replaced that way.
The demographics of the US also support this possibility. America's youngest voters are more socially liberal than any previous generation. Most Americans also generally don't like taxes or one-size-fits-all Government benefits, so there is some support for immigration control and smaller government from a fiscal point of view. I think a political party that supports liberal social ideas like legal abortion and marriage equality and conservative fiscal policies that keep unemployment low and taxes low by means-testing entitlements could find some traction with voters over the next few decades.
That's nothing new. Every generation has been more socially liberal than the previous, because generally speaking, the behavior of social conservatives over the course of American history has pretty much been...not good. (I don't really have a better phrase in mind ATM)
Funny thing, Americans not liking taxes. We kind of need those to do all the stuff people say we should be doing. Reminds me of a study I heard about where people said that the government should spend more on social programs...and reduce taxes. That's like saying "I want a new car, but the dealer better not ask me to pay for it." The overall line of logic of it is why we borrow so heavily from other countries now, and part of the contribution to our growing debt. I do agree the current tax setup in the US is ridiculous, and needs some much-necessary overhauling.
Furthermore, are there places where the government has overreached its authority? Sure. As a teacher, I loathe
all the education initiatives that have happened in the last dozen years, because none of them have actually served to make education better
. It's done things! Oh, it's done things. But I'm of the opinion that things like RTTT and NCLB have done far more harm than good to the American schoolscape. There are some places where I think government can be reduced - but equally there are places where I think government presence needs to be enhanced. (The ATF being unable to effectively do the F part of its job one of them)
In the end, we are in agreement. There'll be a centrist group of individuals - a set of pragmatists whose loyalty is to a functioning government and seeing the country healthy and well - who will rise to replace one or BOTH parties (though I suspect the Democrats will weather the storm better).