It all depends on whose ox is being gored....
I first became aware of how much a U.S. president can do by executive order when Barack Obama made such lavish use of that power. Mr. Obama's supporters were quick to point out that he was hardly the first president to do so.
President Trump is doing the same, and the complaints are now on the other side.
Me? I don't want anyone's ox to be gored. The fact that one president's executive orders can be undone by the next president only shows why legislation ought to be done by ... the Legislature. You want change to happen, make it work through Congress. Is that too difficult? Maybe there's a reason—maybe it should be hard. If you're trying to accomplish something that half the country is against, maybe you need to rethink and rework and renegotiate.
There's a reason some religious denominations wait for full agreement before making major decisions. There's a reason a jury's verdict must be unanimous.
I'll grant that agreement on anything by everyone is impossible in a country as diverse and cantankerous as ours, but moving forward on important policies without the support of a healthy majority—and without provision for the protection of the minority—is death for a democracy.
"It's my ball now, and we'll play by my rules" isn't working very well, and it's making a lot of people unhappy.
Obama's lavish use of that power? Obama used it less than George W. Bush who used it less than Bill Clinton who used it less than Ronald Reagan. Obama had very little chance to get things through an obstructionist Republican congress that happily voted more than fifty times to repeal Obamacare while he was president. Yet, once they had to power to actually repeal it they couldn't do it. Like you said, maybe there's a reason.
