Two Observations here:

1 Under our constitutional arrangement the president is put into office for better or worse by the voters(indirectly), not by Congress. He has the conduct of foreign affairs and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces during his term, with or without the support of a majority in Congress. He is not a Prime Minister dependent upon the support of the legislative majority, or for that matter, the support of his party's legislative caucus. Congress can check the president in these areas, but only by what are now considered drastic actions; cutting off funding, among others.

2 During most of the twentieth century, Americans have expected presidents to be "leaders", whereas earlier generations wanted only a "constitutional president", a sort of caretaker or trustee-like executive, especially during peacetime. From the Progressive era onwards Americans have chosen (or accepted) executive "leaders" who will use the presidency to convince the country to do the "right thng" in spite of itself, and to face down any opposition to the domestic agenda he believes to be in the country's best interest. Presidents who left the domestic agenda initiative to Congress (Coolidge, Eisenhower) have been scorned as " do nothing" presidents. Is it reasonable or logical to want the president to be a "leader" domestically, but merely a "constitutional president" in the conduct of foreign affairs?

I wonder if a more robust education in civics and government would help the population at large select better presidents and congressmen. At the very least it would have the potential to make more people realize the duties that their congressmen are shirking.