More than two political parties

In a two party system there can be so much noise. Under some circumstances the noise becomes louder and louder. When I say yes and you say no and you are bent on disagreeing with me, bypassing the accepted rules of debate, we are on our way to violence from ever increasing levels of frustration. The governing party becomes frustrated by not being able to enact the change that people voted them in office for, while the opposing party cannot back off from making the governing party look like losers. With a third party you have a voice for 'maybe yes, maybe no', which is the voice of nuance and helps to bring reason into the debate when the main parties are stuck in the Yes/No mantra and are unable to create a meaningful debate. For a meaningful debate you need at least two parties to agree that you follow certain rules of argument. Republicans decided on January 21, 2009 that they would try to make the president fail, even though he was elected with a decisive majority and has basically tried to enact a plan that people voted for. I say basically, because he has given the minority a hugh break by essentially pardoning the Bush people but also not repealing many of their questionable actions. I doubt that anyone can make an argument that Obama is governing from a more leftist agenda than what he talked about in the campaign. The opposite argument is easier to made. So what is going on here?

First you win the election in which you laid out your plans which formed the basis for you winning the election and after you win the opposition frustrates the implementation of your plans. This essentially means that the opposition ignores the result of the election, which leads to little meaningful change being enacted. The opposite case is one in which the loyal opposition allows you to make the changes that you campaigned on and that people voted for and uses the new reality (changes in laws, etc.) as the basis for the next election. In my opinion Republicans should have argued to make all health care changes happen in 1-2 years so people would know by the next election what the impact of the changes would be. If the results would really be as bad for the people as Republicans said they would be, this would just be the best possible starting point for the next election, which Republicans supposedly would win. Parties should challenge each other to do better, not make it their objective for you to fail. 

Am I dreaming? What do you think? Is it within the spirit of the constitution to allow a president to fail? What about the country?