While in general, I support the controlling party being able to push their agenda through, see how it works, and then be held accountable, ultimately I agree with the filibuster rule in the Senate where a minority can stall most things indefinitely because it forces the American people to make sure on some big decisions. It mandates more discussions and negotiations with less committed members in that party or more moderate members of the opposing party.
All of us fear the worst more than we aspire for the best. Meaning we are more focused on stopping something bad than achieving something good through politics. That being so, the filibuster forces a super-majority to at least agree that whatever is proposed is made less objectionable even if someone still will disagree with it.
Just like on healthcare now, or tax cuts a decade ago, the final product is made less compelling and less effective than the proponents would want. It will always leave arguments that if one side or the other had been left to do what they wanted, the policy would have worked or worked better. In addition, Obama now as was Bush before will get blamed 100% for any failure even though they didn't get 100% of what they wanted. It's a delicate process.
But through time, I think it's hard to argue that our country hasn't gotten most things right. There are issues that seem to evade us because of "the system" but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.