Gingrich and the Republican Congress probably deserve more respect for the deficit reductions of the 1990s than Sullivan gives them.
And if a Republican president has legitimised irresponsible spending, what chance is there that a Democrat will get tough?
It looks like the lesson is that if you want to get tough on deficits, elect a Republican Congress and a Democrat president. They won't give him what they'd give a Repubican president, and he won't get what his own Democrats would give him.
gridlock! you're right i fear.
The electorate seems to have been at least subconsciously "splitting their vote" for years. The current repub control of the government is actually quite slight, and could very well shift in the next election. The 51-48% victory for GWB, war president, over weak and vacillating JFK, wasn't commanding, and may have indicated an uneasiness with giving all power to one party - even when it's a party one agrees with.
The wisdom of the Constitution isn't any particular politics, but the dynamic of opposition and separation of powers.
One thing Clinton DID have, for a while, was the line-item veto. I can't argue competently for its constitutionality, but for the 1.5 years he had it, he was able to use it to point out the particularly egregious pieces of pork, often benefitting only one individual or company in a district. The amount he actually vetoed was microscopic compared to the overall budget, but it was symbolically very powerful, and it served to help curb the worst offenders in the pork payout.