Thursday
Jul222010
US Politics: Why is Obama's Popularity Dipping?
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 8:59 
In the Sunday Times of London this week, Christina Lamb observed that whilst Barack Obama is one of the most successful presidents in terms of passing legislation, his popularity has sunk to a new low.A CBS/New York Times poll gives Obama an approval rating of 44%. Richard Nixon and George W Bush had ratings which were significantly lower, in the 20% range at their. The warning light for Obama is that, 18 months into their Presidencies, the approval ratings for Nixon and Bush were 58% and 62%.
The Obama Administration’s legislative record is the best since Franklin D Roosevelt’s. It has passed an economic stimulus package of almost $800 billion and has made an important start to health care legislation, although there will be challenges to the latter in the courts. The Finance Reform Bill, signed into law this week, will be the most significant finance regulatory package since the 1930s and undoes much of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation. After a slow reaction to the Louisiana oil rig disaster, Obama has shown leadership in bringing BP to the table and shaking out a huge compensation package. One would have expected the public to have some respect for these achievements.
So why are Obama’s ratings low? Recovery from the economic recession is slow and patchy. Unemployment at almost 10% remains high and is unlikely to improve for a while. Unsurprisingly, then, the President’s popularity suffers. Obama’s problem from Day One was that that the expectation bar was set so high in a shaky economy that no one could have cleared it.
There are other factor. Historically, it is not unusual for a Chief Executive to suffer as he approaches his first mid-term elections. Bill Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 and had to contend with Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who ran away with the idea that he was now in charge of the government. Odd notion, but the Republicans did shut down the Federal Government twice in Clinton’s time.
The media's criticisms have an impact. The unreconstructed neo-conservative, Charles Krauthammer, is crowing in The Washington Post that “there is a run on Obama shares”. (For perspective, consider that Krauthammer slammed George W. Bush in 2001 slammed “W” for declaring a regime-change war on Iraq and not the real enemy of democracy, Iran.) Other far-from-conservative newspapers, such as The New York Times, are claiming that Obama is losing with the voters. Media observations cross the political aisle.
In a politically divided country, Obama is bound to be unpopular in Republican strongholds and with Republican voters. He is not the only one suffering from tensions: in 2010, some middle-of-the-road Republicans are having problems with Tea Party candidates. It is now a dog-eat-dog political world in the USA.
Obama’s win in 2008 found many Democrats winning Congressional seats that be difficult to hold two years later, given that these seats are Republican in all but name. However, what is surprising is that Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, has expressed publicly that Democrats might lose control of both Houses of Congress. Sitting Democrats have blamed Obama for this message and he is now viewed by some as an electoral liability. The President's coattails, for some in his party, are getting short.
Beyond all this, Perhaps the truth lies in the oddity that --- apart from the Clinton years, and perhaps not even then --- Democrats are not used to holding the Executive Branch. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with power. Whatever the reason, the Democrats are starting to take their of the 70s and 80s when they were a firing squad……standing in a circle.
Reader Comments (8)
Gibbs only mentioned the House (of Representatives), not both houses.
"Beyond all this, Perhaps the truth lies in the oddity that — apart from the Clinton years, and perhaps not even then — Democrats are not used to holding the Executive Branch. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with power. Whatever the reason, the Democrats are starting to take their of the 70s and 80s when they were a firing squad……standing in a circle."
Come on, dude. Can't handle power? Circular firing squad? Is that really what you think is happening?
Public option, what was that, can't handle executive power? Watering down financial regulation, that was what - a circular firing squad? The war in Afghanistan? Gay rights? Assassinating American citizens? Endless detention, black prisons, TORTURE?
We should just be SATISFIED with what we got? Just what the hell do you think we're trying to do over here???
Not the strongest analysis on this web site, UJ. Granted. But no reason to start shouting :-)
I miss one very important aspect, very well described in this sound analysis by Reuters: the race factor.
Too painful?
"Analysis: Race issues beset Obama's "post-racial" presidency. By Patricia Zengerle." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6JN20100721" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6JN201...
Granted he has passed a great deal of legisilation but when it is done along party lines, not sure how much of a victory that is. I think promises made about the economic recovery have hurt him the most amoung his own base however with the rise of the Tea Party movement he has a larger voice amoung conservatives to contend with.
Remark no 2. "Obama must wish he were Cameron. You reach out and get things done"... A commentary at the Guardian by Timothy Garton Ash. In it Garton Ash reflects on one other very important aspect which makes Obama lose 'credits': the appaling state of American media.
"Then there are the American media themselves, particularly television and radio, which seem more blaringly partisan every time I return. For years it was Fox News leading the way. Today, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC is almost as relentlessly partisan from the left as Fox's Glenn Beck is from the right. The so-called "Fairness doctrine", by which America's broadcast media were once officially constrained, looks as antiquated as a manual typewriter."
"These media have great power. The Obama administration has just got itself into an embarrassing tangle by forcing Shirley Sherrod, a black official at the Department of Agriculture, to resign over what Fox News, drawing on a video-clip posted on a rightwing website, reported to be anti-white "racist" remarks – though they now turn out to have been the precise opposite."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/21/obama-must-wish-he-were-cameron" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamer...
In reponse to the article, I personally have up on FoxNews a while ago as it was too "unbalanced" despite the tag line. CNN, aside from perhaps one or two correspondents, aren't much better. The sad part is the media has taken the line that it is more important to get ratings then to present facts to the public and when opinions are presented, multiple views are expressed. Sad days when arrest of celebrities takes up as much wep page space as significant domestic and world events.
WitteKr,
Right you are! And even Obama himself agrees with you:
"He [Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsac] jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles," Obama told consumer correspondent Elisabeth Leamy in an exclusive “GMA” interview.
The president, who personally apologized to Sherrod earlier today, said he instructed his administration to learn from the circumstances surrounding her ouster.
“I've told my team and I told my agencies that we have to make sure that we're focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment. We have to take our time and, and think these issues through,” Obama told Leamy.
“If there's a lesson to be drawn from this episode, it's that rather than us jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other, we should all look inward and try to examine what's in our own hearts and, as a consequence, I think we will continue to make progress,” he said.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/07/obama-vilsack-jumped-the-gun-on-sherrods-ouster.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/07/obama-v...
I thoroughly agree with your analysis of the above analysis ;-)
Let's also not forget this little factor : the never-ending war in Afghanistan, maybe?
Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War On CNN (VIDEO)
Fareed Zakaria criticized the Afghanistan war in unusually harsh terms on his CNN program Sunday, saying that "the whole enterprise in Afghanistan feels disproportionate, a very expensive solution to what is turning out to be a small but real problem."
"The latest estimates are that the war in Afghanistan will cost more than $100 billion in 2010 alone. That's a billion dollars for every member of Al Qaeda thought to be living in Afghanistan in one year."
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/04/fareed-zakaria-criticizes_n_635170.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/04/fareed...
[...] US Politics: Why is Obama’s Popularity Dipping? | Enduring America [...]