Observations on congress. ( Archived) (4)

I find it interesting how in the US the person who would be called the opposition leader in parliamentary democracies, can in fact be the leader of the dominant party while the leader of the same party as the president, who would be called the prime minister in parliamentary democracies can be the leader of the party with less seats.
I have wondered for a while why the founding fathers chose this kind of system given that you can end up with stalemates between president and the dominant party in congress. So I was wondering;

Was it the original intention of the founding farthers for the president to be a bipartisan position, with the respective leaders in congress taking on a more important role and more public role than they currently do now? If so then did party politics just slowly make its way into the presidential arena along the way?

Many of the original founding fathers were against parties altogether.
They hoped that elections would be more based on the individuals involved rather than on large organizations.

Wishful thinking. Parties developed right away.

Another element that relates to your question is the idea of separation of powers. The founding fathers were much more concerned with limiting the power of government than in increasing it.

Just as the placement of letters in early typewriters were deliberately arranged to slow down the typist in order to prevent mechanical jams, the founding fathers of the US deliberately created roadblocks to prevent too much power from being concentrated into too few hands. And to be honest, I think most voters in the US prefer to have the congress at odds with the president, rather than to have them too chummy. Horrible things happen when there is nothing to check the executive power.

Now, it's all a joke anyway. The two parties are more or less just for show. The real decisions come out of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and other elitist power brokers who have no allegiance to either party but use them to keep the people deluded.

Worse case, we have gridlock. Gridlock can be good, it means nothing changes.