My "narrative fallacy" flags went off, as it's always convenient to look for a tidy explanation of complex events, although this post makes a good case that can

My "narrative fallacy" flags went off, as it's always convenient to look for a tidy explanation of complex events, although this post makes a good case that candidate selection changes are at least a very interesting factor that's generally overlooked. I wonder, though, if the common thread between the Presidents listed is that they all pretty much oversaw a century of growth in both government power and within that a growth in consolidated power under the executive branch, and I wonder how that effects the ideological interests of different groups who increasingly have more at stake (or at least think they have more at stake) in what the government does. It's also interesting to compare, say, European countries which often have the appearance of similar levels of "big government," but they are generally done at smaller scales more equivalent to US states. The US may be more unique in trying to increasingly manage the interests of 300 million people through one centralized and increasingly powerful yet also democratic government. (then again, there may be holes in that tidy narrative as well...)