Written for the student textbook blog, Everyday Politics.

In 1964, voters sent a new, young generation of Democrats into Congress.
Lyndon Johnson won a landslide election against Barry Goldwater. With
Democratic control over both Congress and the White House, Johnson and
Congress passes a series of major legislation, including The Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Medicare, and Medicaid. Another group of laws were passed aimed at
reducing poverty, improving education, and improving life in inner
cities.

Regardless of your opinion of the outcome of these laws,
there is no question that major change happened in 1964, and it
happened quickly. These laws marked a sharp departure from the past.
Government bureaucracy, as well as the federal budget, ballooned in
size. Lives changed.

When Obama came to office last year with a Democratic
majority in both houses of government, many thought it was 1964 all
over again. He promised major legislation in health care, education,
and infrastructure.

One year later, Congress still has made no
progress on health care. Their Democratic majority is slowly eroding,
and the public has grown cynical.

Why was Johnson so successful in 1964, and Obama has not yet passed health care reform?

There
are many possible answers to this question. Instead of giving you one
definitive answer, I'll propose three possible answers to that question
and let you debate this matter in class. 

1) Some might point to
intervening variables, including the failing economy and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1964, the economy was booming, and Americans
were wealthier than ever before. They were more willing to part with
the tax money than Americans are today.

2) Stephen Skowronek, in addition to coming up with this nifty model for classifying presidents,
wrote that it has grown increasingly difficult for presidents to make
change in the United States, because of the thick layers of bureaucracy
that have formed and the customs that have arisen. In the past, when a
Reconstruction President came to office, it was easier for him to act
as a "battering ram" and create new orders. Now, even strong, talented
presidents can only make small, incremental changes.

Skowronek
might say that bureaucracies and powerful interest groups have arisen
in the past several decades, and they have a strong interest in
perpetuating the status quo around health care policy. They drag down
the system and prevent change.

3) Others might argue that Obama
is having trouble today, because all change is difficult in the United
States. 1964 was the outlier or an anomaly. What made 1964 significant
wasn't the party composition of Congress, but the mood within the
country, which was unusually optimistic and in agreement that change
needed to happen. That broad agreement and optimism from within the
public was a freakish blip in our nation's history.

That unusual
public spirit is the only way that radical change can happen in our
country, because our governmental system was designed by James Madison,
the master worrier. Madison was terrified of rapid change. He worried
that with the increasing the franchise, the unwashed masses might make
unreasonable and unwise demands of their government, so he put in all
sorts of fail safes into the constitution. There are checks upon checks
and a million ways for bill to go off course. Just look at how
difficult it has been for the conference committee to find compromise
between the Senate and the House versions of the Health Care bill.

Which explanation seems most plausible to you? Do you have a better answer to the question?