My argument doesn't depend at all on the president being like a king or dictator. In fact, if the president were like a king or dictator, it would be bizarre for me to even offer up my argument, since there wouldn't be any controversy about the fact the president played a controlling role in such things. The whole point of my argument is to tease out the impact of someone who ISN'T a king or dictator.
When is that NOT the case when testing hypotheses? Other than in very simple physics experiments, we're always going to be wrestling with situations with multiple factors. For example, consider this hypothesis: regular exercise tends to result in longer lives. There are a million factors involved. What kind of exercises? What kind of people are doing the exercising? What about diet? What about access to medicine? Etc. But if you're dealing with a big enough data set, and it shows a pretty substantial difference in lifespan between those who exercise regularly and those who don't, that's going to be seen as supporting the hypothesis. People are, of course, welcome to offer other hypothesis to explain the data in some other manner (e.g., maybe rich people exercise more and it's the wealth that lets them live longer, and once you control for wealth, there's no difference). But step one is to start looking at the data, rather than being content simply to assert something as an opinion.
That's one of the benefits of the large data set. We've had Republican presidents with Republican congresses, and Democratic ones, and split ones, and the same with Democratic presidents. So, those factors should tend to even out. However, if you'd like to recrunch the numbers to break them down by political control of Congress and not just the presidency, we could take a look at what that's telling us.
Some of the ownership class are just dumb. I mean, remember, a large portion of wealth in America is inherited wealth, or wealth that was grown slowly from inherited wealth. Think of Trump as an example. He's basically running his grandfather's business.... and doing it poorly. There's no reason to expect a dim bulb like that would vote rationally. So, when we're talking about muddle-headed trust fund kids, it's not surprising to find they could vote against their own rational best interests. They could just hear the Democrats talking more about issues that help the "worker drones" and assume what's good for the workers must be bad for them.
I think another explanation is "relative wealth." Think of it this way: would you rather be someone in the top 1% of the population in 2018 Munich or, say, 200 CE Rome, or 1720 CE Paris, or 1850 CE Atlanta? In terms of absolute wealth, you'd be VASTLY better off choosing modern Munich, where you'll have access to health treatment, technologies, and other benefits that couldn't be had at ANY price in those other times and places. You'd live like a olden days king could only dream of living, in absolute terms.
Yet think of it in relative terms. A top 1% person in Munich today would be nothing special. He probably drives himself to work, microwaves a disappointing dinner for himself many nights, cleans his own home, etc. Even if he's fairly senior at work, even the most junior of people don't feel the need to call him "Mister," or to treat him with any particular deference. By comparison, in those other times and places, the top 1%-er really would "live like a king" within his own little kingdom. He'd have a small staff of domestic servants, if not a large staff of slaves, catering to his every need. He'd be able to lord it over the vast majority of those around him, dispensing or denying alms as he felt fit, basking in the adoration (or fear) of his underlings, etc. And he'd be important. He'd have great power, at least locally, without the need to care much what the "rabble" thought about governance, etc.
I think a lot of people will give up plenty of absolute wealth in favor of relative wealth. And Republican leadership tends to favor that. Even though they suck at creating absolute wealth for those at the top, they have a strong record for holding back those at the bottom or the middle, enhancing the relative wealth and power of the elite. If you're, say, looking to staff your Mar-a-lago resort with a bunch of underlings who spend their days kissing your ass because they're scared to death of crushing poverty if they lose their position, then a Republican economy, where most people operate with no safety net and the little people are kept in line by debt and fear, has a lot to offer. A Democratic economy, where it's hard to find good help and people know they have a decent safety net if they lose their job, really undermines the entitlement of the Lordlings.
