In the current situation, much of the rancor surrounding the criticism of Mr. Obama's use of this device has been focused on his choosing to act via executive order (227 times and counting) rather than opting to "work the Hill" as his predecessors have. That is, to lobby, consult with and/or take advice from the Congress in order to achieve bi-partisan legislation in the time-honored manner. In short, he has been unwilling to compromise with the opposition party and he has been justly criticized for that approach to governance.
These points came to mind recently as I listened to Mark Davis, a local, conservative radio talk show host who was in the midst of decrying what he described as the "Namby Pamby" Republican members of Congress for their willingness to compromise with the Democrats. This struck me as odd, because I know of no one who has been more vociferous in his condemnation of Obama's "My way or the highway..." attitude when dealing with Republican Congressional leaders or his use of the Executive Order than Mark Davis. It seems to me that if one is going criticize the President for NOT compromising, he can't, then, demand that Congressmen and Senators "Stick to their principles" and refuse to "Reach across the aisle" as Mr. Davis advocates. You can't have it both ways.
Indeed, in recently re-reading parts of The Federalist Papers, I came upon an instructive anecdote concerning Alexander Hamilton who proposed the original idea for "The Federalist" and authored many of its dissertations. This story reveals something about Hamilton's own willingness to compromise. To wit: on the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton spoke to the delegates, saying that no man's ideas were more remote from the plan than his were known to be, but that fact did not preclude him from putting his personal objections to parts of the document aside and doing everything in his power to get it ratified in his own state of New York. His view, as he discussed in Federalist 85, was that the Constitution was "Not perfect but good..."
In my view, compromise is not the dirty word that it has come to be thought of in certain circles. My favorite Political Science professor, Dr. Menard, used to say the "Politics is the art of the possible". I believe that, but in order get legislation passed in a two party system, one must be willing to give and take---to compromise. To refuse to do so produces the "...gridlock in Washington" with which we are all too familiar. Maybe we should send everyone in Washington, D.C. a copy of "The Federalist". We could use a little dose of Hamilton just now!