This is framed as a rebuttal to me, but I basically agree with it. I’m probably a bit more pessimistic on how much room there was to safety maneuver at the beginning of the financial crisis, but that’s a judgment call.
A reasonable shortcut here is to the extent your agenda can be accomplished through executive authority, there’s a lot the president can do. I make this argument at length in my piece on Elizabeth Warren: vox.com/policy-and-pol…
The tricky question there, in an aggressive left presidency, is the Supreme Court, but i’m not at all confident in my ability to handicap that, so I won’t. Ask @imillhiser!
But to the extent you need new legislation, that’s vastly harder, because the system is rigged so popular majorities - in particular popular Democratic majorities - don’t translate cleanly (or sometimes at all) into political power.
As I read this, Ryan is saying liberals need a more aggressive theory of how much a president can and should do through executive authority. I’m saying leftists (and Senate Dems) need a more aggressive theory of how to reform political systems. We may both be right!
