To understand the lockstep relationship between Obama's popularity and the state of the economy, it helps to look at two previous presidents who, like Obama, confronted a failing economy: Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
When Roosevelt took office in 1933, unemployment was almost 25 percent, but, during his first term, it fell steadily-- to less than 14 percent in November 1936. The economy, in other words, seemed to be healing. Gallup wasn't measuring presidential approval then, but FDR's rising popularity was evident in election results: Democrats picked up congressional seats in 1934 and 1936, despite already enjoying huge majorities; and, in 1936, Roosevelt won in a landslide, carrying the Electoral College by the largest margin ever.
The arc of Reagan's popularity illustrates the same phenomenon. In July 1981, when unemployment stood at 7.2 percent--what it had been at the end of Carter's presidency--only 28 percent of Gallup's respondents disapproved of Reagan. But, by January 1983, after unemployment had risen to 10.8 percent the previous month, Reagan's disapproval rating was a whopping 54 percent. In November 1982, even a crippled Democratic Party had been able to win seats in the House and Senate. During the same time, Reagan benefited politically from surviving an assassination attempt, got Congress to approve his signature tax and budget programs, and certainly didn't make egregious political errors. What mattered, finally, was the economy. And, as the economy turned around, so did the GOP's political prospects. By November 1984, unemployment had dropped back to 7.2 percent, and only 30 percent of respondents disapproved of Reagan. In that month's election, he claimed a landslide victory over Walter Mondale. (To see how closely Reagan's disapproval ratings tracked unemployment, see Figure 1.)
For both Roosevelt and Reagan, what mattered was not the actual state of the economy, but whether things were getting better or worse. The unemployment rate was still incredibly high when FDR won reelection in 1936, and Reagan didn't actually lower unemployment between the time he took office and the time he was reelected--he only managed to get it back to where it had been at the start of his term. But, in both 1936 and 1984, the trajectory of unemployment was downward, and that was the key.
Moreover, history suggests that it is not enough for the economy to be headed in the right direction; it has to be headed in the right direction in tangible ways that voters can see. Economists pronounced the recession of the early 1990s over in March 1991. But, when unemployment continued to rise through 1991 and most of 1992 and real wages stagnated, the public perceived the economy to still be declining--and it punished George H.W. Bush accordingly.
Clinton, who was harmed by wage stagnation during his first two years, benefited dramatically in his second term from the public's perception of economic improvement. In 1998, Clinton was involved in the first impeachment scandal since Watergate, and it was widely expected that his party would lose seats in the midterm elections. But economic good news trumped Monica Lewinsky. As the unemployment rate went down during this period, Clinton's popularity increased. And Democrats ended up winning House seats in 1998 and House and Senate seats in 2000. (Figure 2 shows the close correlation between Clinton's disapproval numbers and the unemployment rate.)
To be sure, there can be mitigating factors that counter the effect a declining economy has on a president's popularity. In the first nine months of George W. Bush's administration, as the unemployment rate rose from 4.2 percent to 5 percent, his disapproval numbers rose from 25 percent to 39 percent. That was to be expected. But unemployment continued to rise, climbing to 5.9 percent in April 2002, while Bush's disapproval rating fell to 19 percent. The reason, of course, was that public approval of Bush's response to September 11 overshadowed doubts about his handling of the economy.
Print
COMMENTS (19)
Judis jumps back in the game joining The Editors in tentatively applauding Obama, Baucus and the insurance industry for being on the brink of health care "reform". Really, that's what he'll call it when it's his turn to drink the kool-aid. Or does he make the stuff now?
But why so long? Did Marty have him on suspension...or is he working on the new book, "My Long Road From Main Street To Wall Street: The Inflection Point Years"
And here we go again:
Yesterday:
"The Republican Party Is Falling Apart At The Seams---Democrats Likely To Rule For Generations To Come!!"
Today:
"Polls Show Republicans Surging In Key States.....Obama, Democrats Risk Losing It All [OH GOD] Forever!!!"
You guys are fucking ... view full comment
Judis jumps back in the game joining The Editors in tentatively applauding Obama, Baucus and the insurance industry for being on the brink of health care "reform". Really, that's what he'll call it when it's his turn to drink the kool-aid. Or does he make the stuff now?
But why so long? Did Marty have him on suspension...or is he working on the new book, "My Long Road From Main Street To Wall Street: The Inflection Point Years"
And here we go again:
Yesterday:
"The Republican Party Is Falling Apart At The Seams---Democrats Likely To Rule For Generations To Come!!"
Today:
"Polls Show Republicans Surging In Key States.....Obama, Democrats Risk Losing It All [OH GOD] Forever!!!"
You guys are fucking shameless!! Really, doesn't this sort of stuff EVER embarass you? ; o )
Judis apparently is here to help explain, "the only way Obama can pull his presidency back from the brink"
Again, you have to keep reminding yourself: This is The New Republic, not Reader's Digest....This is The New Republic, not Reader's Digest....This is the New Republic, not Weekly Reader.
It's sad, fellas.
And then of course: The History Lesson. FDR. Reagan. Clinton. The Ominous Parallels. Charts. What It All Means. What We Can Expect. How Obama Can Turn It Around. Or not.
But there is, in fact, one thing we can surely rely on. This: That if these "ominous" signs do portend danger for the Democrats we can count on the sheer political stupidity of millions of American voters to embrace the Republican Party for solutions. They're smart as a whip, aren't they?
Nothing here from Judis of course about organizing these voters from the left and bringing them marching to the Capitol with an actual 2,000,000 strong body count.
Aside to an old comrade:
What's wrong, John, is that "soooo 1960s"? Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck have you let them do to you? Is being accepted as "one of them".....an inside the beltway mainstream pundit....really something you are actually proud of now?!!! Hell, sure, I abandoned all that socialist bullshit years ago, but if I ever sink down as low as the stuff above, you've got my express permission to track me down and put me out of my fucking misery.
You've practically become David Broder, man!!!!
;;; ooo ))) [for old times sake]
george walton
d/a
I wouldn't mind a chart that simply tracked disapproval and unemployment since disapproval has been polled. For that matter, we could throw in an approval line too. The presentation here raises two questions: First, what about the periods not shown? For example, I assume that Clinton's early first term troubles -- one of the precedents that is driving Judis's concerns -- could *not* be explained by unemployment, because that chart is not shown and Judis offers in passing a preemptive, economic explanation for its absence -- that is, Clinton was hit by "wage stagnation." But is wage stagnation really a good explanation for Clinton's Obama-esque early rise in disapproval? What about that ... view full comment
I wouldn't mind a chart that simply tracked disapproval and unemployment since disapproval has been polled. For that matter, we could throw in an approval line too. The presentation here raises two questions: First, what about the periods not shown? For example, I assume that Clinton's early first term troubles -- one of the precedents that is driving Judis's concerns -- could *not* be explained by unemployment, because that chart is not shown and Judis offers in passing a preemptive, economic explanation for its absence -- that is, Clinton was hit by "wage stagnation." But is wage stagnation really a good explanation for Clinton's Obama-esque early rise in disapproval? What about that other Obama-esque elephant in the room -- the health care reform controversy?
Second, how compelling would the charts look if a consistent unemployment scale were used, instead of one manipulated to make the lines coincide almost exactly? For example, if the Reagan chart's unemployment scale had been used for the Clinton chart, one would see his disapproval falling faster than unemployment. If that scale had been used for the Obama chart, it would appear that Obama's disapproval has risen much faster than unemployment. Indeed, it would look like Obama's disapproval has risen fairly quickly even as already high unemployment levels off following the end of its precipitous rise under Bush.
These questions about cherry-picking and chart tricks notwithstanding, I take Judis's point about the popular perception of trends in the economy. Even if the lines wouldn't match up just so in a different presentation, they would be going in about the same direction -- at least for the periods shown -- which is not surprising. "It's the economy, stupid" remains a formidable thesis. I especially like Judis's call for better marketing. (I've seen many road-side construction signs stating that the project is funded by the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, complete with the little symbol they made up for it. But I doubt many notice them. The signs are green, like road signs, and use the same font, nobody recognizes the symbol, and "recovery and reinvestment" is a mouthful. How about big, clear, unique signs: "THIS IS A FEDERAL STIMULUS PROJECT -- CREATING JOBS FOR AMERICA." It's small, but you get the idea. As Judis says, trumpet your efforts and your success.)
But, what else is he proposing? Recognizing that actually changing the near-term jobs picture is unlikely, he urges Obama to look busy. As I said, with respect to marketing, that's a fine idea, but is that how *policy* should be designed? Judis may have in the forefront of his mind FDR's flashy flurry of activity which historians agree *did* capture the public imagination and *did* instill a sense of optimism, which is no trivial thing. Modern economies are driven by optimism -- a willingness to bet on a bright future. But looking busy as a substantive remedy only works if you've got credibility -- if it is *believed* that your efforts are working or will work. Obama does not face the same citizenry that FDR did. Today's population, it appears, is more broadly skeptical and cynical about such efforts, which seem more radical to more people than FDR's seemed then. Judis likes cash-for-clunkers, but that was overbroad and small potatoes anyway. What he's really asking Obama to do is to "keep pouring money into jobs and into the pockets of people who will spend until the unemployment rate begins going down and wages begin going up. That may mean a second stimulus ...." Fine! What should he do next, having abolished Congress and declared himself King of the Universe? Bring back Arrested Development?
Walton, you are insane and the sad thing is is that you don't know it. John Judis as David Broder is the dumbest thing that I have ever read on this website. Jonathan Chait - who is about a billion times smarter than you - wrote an excellent piece on the fact that even partial health care reform will be a radical step forward. But no, if you can't have the whole loaf, you don't want any of it. The late Richard Rorty wrote about your kind when he said that radicals desire the sublime while liberals are satisfied with the merely beautiful. Actually, he was writing about people far smarter than you but your attitude is redolent of his apercu.
Walton, you are insane and the sad thing is is that you don't know it. John Judis as David Broder is the dumbest thing that I have ever read on this website. Jonathan Chait - who is about a billion times smarter than you - wrote an excellent piece on the fact that even partial health care reform will be a radical step forward. But no, if you can't have the whole loaf, you don't want any of it. The late Richard Rorty wrote about your kind when he said that radicals desire the sublime while liberals are satisfied with the merely beautiful. Actually, he was writing about people far smarter than you but your attitude is redolent of his apercu.
Lib,
Chait, Judis and Rorty [Rorty from the grave] can no doubt run rings around me intellectually. All academics can. But that doesn't make them any less subservient to the WHCD ilk that pervades the mainstream media. They ooze the newspeak of those who get almost all the information they think they need to know about the world around us....from each other. They all read the same stuff skewed left or right. They all think comfortably within the parameters of the inflection points that embrace state capitalism while still yammering on and on about stuff like freedom and democracy at home and abroad. As though the two the bump into each other only occasional with glancing blows.
And if more th ... view full comment
Lib,
Chait, Judis and Rorty [Rorty from the grave] can no doubt run rings around me intellectually. All academics can. But that doesn't make them any less subservient to the WHCD ilk that pervades the mainstream media. They ooze the newspeak of those who get almost all the information they think they need to know about the world around us....from each other. They all read the same stuff skewed left or right. They all think comfortably within the parameters of the inflection points that embrace state capitalism while still yammering on and on about stuff like freedom and democracy at home and abroad. As though the two the bump into each other only occasional with glancing blows.
And if more than a handful of them have a sense of humor [in print] or even the vaguest intimation about the role irony plays philosophically in our understanding of the relationship between words and worlds, I never see it.
Come on, they have virtually no intriguing insights into the profoundly problematic nature of human identity, true believers, whole truthers, political economy, emotional and psychological narratives, or the geek speak of Judis above.
They are existentially challenged and I just feel compelled to expose the caricature of erudition that reflects this ever didactic [worse, pedantic] moral and political discourse.
They sound like ATM machines that dispense words.
Unless of course I'm wrong.
george
It's really, really, really the economy, stupid.
Obama can't just "hope." After health care reform in some form or another is passed, Obama has to get medieval on unemployment. End of story.
It's insane that China is cspturing the green jobs market.
It's really, really, really the economy, stupid.
Obama can't just "hope." After health care reform in some form or another is passed, Obama has to get medieval on unemployment. End of story.
It's insane that China is cspturing the green jobs market.
Every other stable and functional discussion group or message board I've ever used has allowed users to customize their interaction with other users. For example, to receive alerts when a favorite other commenter posts a message. Or, more to the point, to ignore messages from particular commenters, such that posts from known trolls simply don't appear in threads at all. TNR.com used to have some of these features; now it does not, or if it does, they are prohibitively hard to find to activate. This is a major step backwards. These tools -- the ability to follow or ignore posts by particular individuals -- are fundamental and necessary to allowing any useful online discussion. Without these t ... view full comment
Every other stable and functional discussion group or message board I've ever used has allowed users to customize their interaction with other users. For example, to receive alerts when a favorite other commenter posts a message. Or, more to the point, to ignore messages from particular commenters, such that posts from known trolls simply don't appear in threads at all. TNR.com used to have some of these features; now it does not, or if it does, they are prohibitively hard to find to activate. This is a major step backwards. These tools -- the ability to follow or ignore posts by particular individuals -- are fundamental and necessary to allowing any useful online discussion. Without these tools, the inmates always wind up running the place, and they quickly ruin it.
rhubarbs said,
"...These tools -- the ability to follow or ignore posts by particular individuals -- are fundamental and necessary to allowing any useful online discussion..."
I second that. In particular, there's a particular maundering ubertroll I'd love to be able to filter out.
rhubarbs said,
"...These tools -- the ability to follow or ignore posts by particular individuals -- are fundamental and necessary to allowing any useful online discussion..."
I second that. In particular, there's a particular maundering ubertroll I'd love to be able to filter out.
Aside from George who always has a pretty good handle on things, nothing to see here but the same old BS. Now I remember why I stopped commenting here, damn this rag needs an infusion of fresh commenting blood.
Aside from George who always has a pretty good handle on things, nothing to see here but the same old BS. Now I remember why I stopped commenting here, damn this rag needs an infusion of fresh commenting blood.
rube:
....Or, more to the point, to ignore messages from particular commenters, such that posts from known trolls simply don't appear in threads at all. TNR.com used to have some of these features; now it does not, or if it does, they are prohibitively hard to find to activate...
george:
Or why not just outright censor them....or kick them out of here? Right, Mr. Rube? We're Good and they're Evil,
You guys are priceless.
How are you NOT able to ignore alleged trols in here? Are you reading trolls now? Then stop reading them. After all, if trolls come in here to "ruin it" and no one ever reads them, what's ruined?
What is it about particular "trolls" that so disturb you if you don't have to read ... view full comment
rube:
....Or, more to the point, to ignore messages from particular commenters, such that posts from known trolls simply don't appear in threads at all. TNR.com used to have some of these features; now it does not, or if it does, they are prohibitively hard to find to activate...
george:
Or why not just outright censor them....or kick them out of here? Right, Mr. Rube? We're Good and they're Evil,
You guys are priceless.
How are you NOT able to ignore alleged trols in here? Are you reading trolls now? Then stop reading them. After all, if trolls come in here to "ruin it" and no one ever reads them, what's ruined?
What is it about particular "trolls" that so disturb you if you don't have to read them?
george
b1462:
In particular, there's a particular maundering ubertroll I'd love to be able to filter out.
george:
More of the same.
Try this:
1]
You come into TNR talkback and there's the ubertroll
2]
You say to yourself, "I know. I won't read him this time"
3]
You don't read him this time. Or ever again.
Problem solved. I know it's not the same as sending Jack Bauer in after him but like Macguyver you sometimes have to improvise.
Oh, and just in case that ubertroll happens to be me I'll repeat myself:
I've thought about it some and as close as I can figure, people recoil from me here because:
1]
I'm annoying when I poke around in things that generally discomfit people who like their topical discussions linear ... view full comment
b1462:
In particular, there's a particular maundering ubertroll I'd love to be able to filter out.
george:
More of the same.
Try this:
1]
You come into TNR talkback and there's the ubertroll
2]
You say to yourself, "I know. I won't read him this time"
3]
You don't read him this time. Or ever again.
Problem solved. I know it's not the same as sending Jack Bauer in after him but like Macguyver you sometimes have to improvise.
Oh, and just in case that ubertroll happens to be me I'll repeat myself:
I've thought about it some and as close as I can figure, people recoil from me here because:
1]
I'm annoying when I poke around in things that generally discomfit people who like their topical discussions linear or literal. The irony challanged denizens of the mainstream media in particular.
2]
Having been born and raised in the crude, scatological world of a hardcore working class community outside Wilkes Barre, I can be crude and scatological in a way that allows for many Preening Intellectuals to reduce my points down to that. I don't sound like them and that is often more important than whatever it is that is actually said. They interact as colleagues. And that's fine. But you don't have to be the colleague type to have piercing perceptions about human interaction. As with Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade, I'm feeding them pearls. And they don't even know it.
3]
Philosophically, I yank political pundits into the infinitely problematic thickets of Cioran, Pessoa, Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and Rorty. I deconstruct identity and situate it in ever evolving contingency, chance and change. I'm less intrigued with what people think they know about something and more fascinated instead with how much thought they have given to the limitations of human knowledge. In particular, the inherent limitations of human language in professing moral and political value judgments.
4]
I'm ever introducing human emotional and psychological narratives into their linear academic models
george walton
d/a
What the hell! I think I'll fling in a comment on the article, instead of the commentators.
I think Judis, like Carville before him, has it fundamentally right: It's always the economy, stupid! Rule 1: When people feel good, or at least better, they reward the incumbents. When they feel bad, or no better, they punish the incumbents. Rule 2: Unless the incumbents are Hoover, Mellon, et al, the next guy(s) only get so long to blame things on their predecessors. Rule 3: The other rules are hard on politicians, who, like economists, secretly understand that there are limits to their ability to impact the private economy.
The fact that most economists, notably including Ms. Romer, expect the ... view full comment
What the hell! I think I'll fling in a comment on the article, instead of the commentators.
I think Judis, like Carville before him, has it fundamentally right: It's always the economy, stupid! Rule 1: When people feel good, or at least better, they reward the incumbents. When they feel bad, or no better, they punish the incumbents. Rule 2: Unless the incumbents are Hoover, Mellon, et al, the next guy(s) only get so long to blame things on their predecessors. Rule 3: The other rules are hard on politicians, who, like economists, secretly understand that there are limits to their ability to impact the private economy.
The fact that most economists, notably including Ms. Romer, expect the jobless rate to remain near 10% as the midterm elections approach would seem to spell trouble for the Ds. Too long after the presidential election to keep blaming everything on Bush. I also think the liberals have a certain schizophrenic streak, which often lays them low. On the one hand, they never feel they'll hold power for very long, so they try to accomplish everything at once. This is exemplified by Rahm Emanuel's quip about a crisis being a terrible thing to waste. On the other hand, they can't accept that there are other rational people who do not share their views or objectives. This is exemplified by the quip, variously attributed to Pauline Kael or Arthur Miller, on Reagan's election: I can't understand it; nobody I know voted for him.
As soon as Obama was inaugurated, the president urged and congress passed an enormous stimulus package that very visibly contained a ton of pork, and very little immediate stimulus. They then turned their attention to other matters, cap and trade and health care, which polls consistently indicate are currently a lower priority for most voters than for liberal politicians and activists. The economic message comes across as soldier on, it coulda been woise. Meanwhile, we have other fish to fry. The cap and trade bill passed the House only after the leadership bargained away the funding bases to sustain it. Does anyone think it will pass in the senate? All of the health bills hinge, one way or another, on getting somebody to pay for most of somebody else's coverage. Polls that indicate most people are satisfied with the coverage they have, but are wary of having additional costs imposed on them are ignored.
The main thing the Ds have going for them is my party, the Rs. The Rs took a thorough thumping in the last two election cycles, and deserved it. Most of the survivors are in safe seats and have no fear of being tagged as right wing social or economic extremists. They look and sound like they'd rather make noise than govern. I sure wish we had held some of those seats now occupied by the blue dogs the liberals despise.
isernoff:
I think Judis, like Carville before him, has it fundamentally right: It's always the economy, stupid!
george:
No, it's always the enormous influence [and the inherent potential for legalized plutocracy] those with poitical and economic power have OVER THE ECONOMY, stupid!!
Judis used to grasp this more clearly. Now he still grasps it of course but he has sold his soul to the media moguls big and small who earn a living shoveling state capitalism under the rug. Some do it self-consciously, others are sadly blind to it because they read the stuff of those who either do the shoveling or are blinkered by it themselves.
Where is THIS in the Judis ChartWorld?
Max Baucus funds his political car ... view full comment
isernoff:
I think Judis, like Carville before him, has it fundamentally right: It's always the economy, stupid!
george:
No, it's always the enormous influence [and the inherent potential for legalized plutocracy] those with poitical and economic power have OVER THE ECONOMY, stupid!!
Judis used to grasp this more clearly. Now he still grasps it of course but he has sold his soul to the media moguls big and small who earn a living shoveling state capitalism under the rug. Some do it self-consciously, others are sadly blind to it because they read the stuff of those who either do the shoveling or are blinkered by it themselves.
Where is THIS in the Judis ChartWorld?
Max Baucus funds his political career:
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,608,823
Securities & Investment $1,480,535
INSURANCE INDUSTRY $1,190,463
HEALTHY PROFESSIONALS: $1,032,276
PHARMECEUTICAL/HEALTH PRODUCTS $751,605
Where is THIS:
According to the data at OpenSecrets.org, the health care industry [as a whole] contributed the following to the folks in Congress:
2010* $23,700,000 * so far
2008 $166,600,000
2006 $100,200,000
2004 $123,900,000
2002 $95,600,000
2000 $97,600,000
1998 $59,100,000
1996 $69,000,000
1994 $49,800,000
1992 $43,900,000
1990 $21,900,000
Total: $851,500,000
george:
That's nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!! And no doubt will go over that when the 2010 election cycle is over.
Yet Judis and The Editors at New Republic pretend this is just one more piece of puzzle---instead of the biggest piece by far. Oh, and the border and the frame as well.
WHEN THEY MENTION IT AT ALL.
Where is THAT in the Judis narrative above? WHY isn't it there? Why isn't it there in your rejoinder?
george
I believe I've said before on this site that the economy is the key determinant of this president's popularity (barring some extraordinary event such as 9-11). Most economists expect a gradual recovery, and it is likely that unemployment will start falling some time in 2010. If, by summer/early fall 2010, unemployment is trending down, and other signs of recovery (productivity, profits, stock prices) abound, Obama will be quite popular. The stimulus, much of which is just starting to be implemented, will deservedly get some credit.
A health care bill, once passed, will probably not hurt his popularity. Whatever passes will be unlikely to fit conservatives' fantasy of "gubmint takeover of eve ... view full comment
I believe I've said before on this site that the economy is the key determinant of this president's popularity (barring some extraordinary event such as 9-11). Most economists expect a gradual recovery, and it is likely that unemployment will start falling some time in 2010. If, by summer/early fall 2010, unemployment is trending down, and other signs of recovery (productivity, profits, stock prices) abound, Obama will be quite popular. The stimulus, much of which is just starting to be implemented, will deservedly get some credit.
A health care bill, once passed, will probably not hurt his popularity. Whatever passes will be unlikely to fit conservatives' fantasy of "gubmint takeover of everything", and their rhetoric will be exposed over time as out of touch with reality. Current attacks are based on a variety of bills floating around Congress with little chance of passage, or on the misrepresentation of articles written by a health care advisor years ago, etc. The actual bill once passed, will not please the GOP base. But I think that moderate independents will come to realize the benefits (such as not being dropped by insurers when you get sick).
One other point: much of the doubt about health care proposals, and the president's overall record on the economy, is based on a general anxiety about the increasing role of government, in banks, automakers, etc. Many of the independents who voted for Obama are responsive to libertarian rhetoric about government's role in the economy, even though there is often much inconsistency between the rhetoric and the level of government help they, in practice, expect and desire. These concerns can be addressed by calling attention, over the next year, to each time the government reduces its direct role in the private sector (while regulation of the financial sector should proceed, so we don't have to go through this again).
Presidential popularity goes up and down widely. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II - I can think of major ups and downs in all their terms in office. Obama is currently popular with most of the people who voted for him, and unpopular with most of those who voted for McCain. I would hardly expect anything different with the economy where it is.
One more comment: predictions about Democratic losses in Congress may turn out to be correct, but I am skeptical about anything more than the loss of a few seats. One reason is cautious optimism about the economy. The other is that when voters get a close look at some of the actual people the GOP nominates, they may find them too repulsive to merit serious consideration.
One more comment: predictions about Democratic losses in Congress may turn out to be correct, but I am skeptical about anything more than the loss of a few seats. One reason is cautious optimism about the economy. The other is that when voters get a close look at some of the actual people the GOP nominates, they may find them too repulsive to merit serious consideration.
Yeah, well, you know what? The economy isn't going to be "fixed" any time soon. And
one problem is that the better some things get, the quicker people forget how close
we came to disaster and the more they complain about cost, Federal take-overs, etc.
But there are a few things the President might do to enhance his fading image:
1. Stop trying to appear on television every day of the week.
2. Stop trying to do everything himself, or to make it appear he's doing everything
himself.
3. Hire some people who are competent to assume responsibility for major
initiatives and programs. Let's see, now there's Hillary and...? There are some
real nobodies ... view full comment
Yeah, well, you know what? The economy isn't going to be "fixed" any time soon. And
one problem is that the better some things get, the quicker people forget how close
we came to disaster and the more they complain about cost, Federal take-overs, etc.
But there are a few things the President might do to enhance his fading image:
1. Stop trying to appear on television every day of the week.
2. Stop trying to do everything himself, or to make it appear he's doing everything
himself.
3. Hire some people who are competent to assume responsibility for major
initiatives and programs. Let's see, now there's Hillary and...? There are some
real nobodies and buffoons in the Cabinet, and no one of sufficient stature has
been assigned to congressional liaison. The Democratic leadership, especially in
the Senate, has to be replaced or circumvented.
4. Establish a system for following through on enacted or announced programs
and initiatives in order to ensure that they are carried out as intended and are
achieving the desired results. Governing involves more than an ongoing policy
seminar. It seems that almost nothing has been properly implemented:
the program to assist private investors to buy toxic bank assets is still lost in
space, the program to revise people's mortgages has barely gotten off the ground,
the new system of financial regulation is still a figment of someone's imagination,
since we keep returned to step 1 every time some Democrat has a new idea, etc., etc.
Many other plans have been promised as well, but few have seen the light of day.
Apparently there are now some kinds of benchmarks for Afghanistan, but the
Administration has still not decided what we are doing there--so of course we have
endless dithering about how many troops we need, how long we're willing to stay.
etc., and thus the benchmarks cannot possibly mean anything. And
how about the plans for closing Guantanamo, for prosecuting the prisoners who
cannot be released, for taking a position on climate control--even for what the
Administration really wants the health care system to look like (meaning what it
is willing to fight for instead of hinting at further compromise) and what if
anything will be done to reduce the cost of care. (And my own personal favorite:
when are the obvious steps going to be taken to improve veterans' medical and mental
health care and facilitate their claims for benefits?) All these plans, if they are ever
written, will have to be implemented too, although it is hard to see how that can
possibly occur with the present cast of characters.
5. The President has done some of his best work in the area of foreign affairs,
and I think shows real promise of being able to resolve or at least control some of the
world's most pressing problems. Not too many American presidents could have equaled
his performance of the last three days at the United Nations. So fine. Nothing is
more important than keeping the world from blowing itself to bits. But meanwhile
some has got to be running the country--and not the laughable Rahm Emanuel or
the other poseurs we see on television every day. Unfortunately, the two most
competent people in the Administration are working on the same thing. Somebody
or many somebodies as competent or nearly so have to start working on making
the government functional, so it can start fulfilling its commitments and thus ameliorate
the corrosive skepticism that threatens to paralyze the country altogether. Job 1, then,
is to shut up, stop taking all three sides of every issue, make the hard decisions, do what
it takes to carry them out, and start producing some tangible, measurable results--so
that the millions of Americans waiting to be led will have something and someone to
believe in. And if we fail, we fail; but the worst failure would be to continue the way
we are.
Interesting mlottman: I find 1 and 2 baffling. The conventional wisdom had been that Obama was not doing enough himself and wasn't out there enough. (I agreed. He was letting the health care debate get away from him.) Now, having given a well-received nationally televised speech and several interviews, he's absurdly accused of being "over-exposed." Ridiculous -- a totally made-up controversy concocted by bored TV people and partisan hacks. With respect to 3, I don't know what buffoons you have in mind. It appears to me that this cabinet is uniquely stocked with knowledge and expertise. The adminsitration's economic people strike me as very good. Sure, you could call Geithner and Go ... view full comment
Interesting mlottman: I find 1 and 2 baffling. The conventional wisdom had been that Obama was not doing enough himself and wasn't out there enough. (I agreed. He was letting the health care debate get away from him.) Now, having given a well-received nationally televised speech and several interviews, he's absurdly accused of being "over-exposed." Ridiculous -- a totally made-up controversy concocted by bored TV people and partisan hacks. With respect to 3, I don't know what buffoons you have in mind. It appears to me that this cabinet is uniquely stocked with knowledge and expertise. The adminsitration's economic people strike me as very good. Sure, you could call Geithner and Goolsbee "nobodies" if you want -- but I'm convinced they know what they're doing. I especially like your suggestion of a Senate leadership shake-up. How would you suggest that the White House accomplish that? Your 4 is overwrought and is basically answered by the unsatisfying but, I think, accurate response, "They're working on it; it can't all change overnight." Some of your complaints amount to nothing more than, "But I want it now!" Obama is considering troop levels in Afghanistan. It's okay to think about it for two minutes. Financial regulation, along with everything else, is working its way through Congress, an institution not known for lightening-fast speed, which would dither even more absent Obama's involvement and exposure, which you counsel against in 1 and 2. I appreciate the frustration you express in 5. I think much of that frustration could be addressed by, as I and Judis basically said, better marketing.
p.s. The urge to tell the White House to "just do it" neglects the extent to which it is but one branch of government. You have to deal with the fact that the resposne to such entreaties, if they're not carefully calibrated and orchestrated, will be, "Uh, no."
p.s. The urge to tell the White House to "just do it" neglects the extent to which it is but one branch of government. You have to deal with the fact that the resposne to such entreaties, if they're not carefully calibrated and orchestrated, will be, "Uh, no."
Everyone might want to look at today's Times, which reports Obama's approval rating at 56% (higher than Reagan's at this point, and much higher than Clinton's). Also, many more trust him over Republicans on health care and the economy, and Democrats in Congress poll much better than Republicans. Obama's (& Democrats') numbers only look low if you compare them to last spring; I never expected those to last. Once a president and a congress of one party start to DO things that are on their agenda, adherents of the other party start to disapprove. No surprise.
Everyone might want to look at today's Times, which reports Obama's approval rating at 56% (higher than Reagan's at this point, and much higher than Clinton's). Also, many more trust him over Republicans on health care and the economy, and Democrats in Congress poll much better than Republicans. Obama's (& Democrats') numbers only look low if you compare them to last spring; I never expected those to last. Once a president and a congress of one party start to DO things that are on their agenda, adherents of the other party start to disapprove. No surprise.
I wish someone from TNR would respond to (actually, apologize for) jhildner's first comment above.
It's manifestly dishonest to present three charts purporting to show the same thing (correlation between unemployment and presidential approval) even though a consistent scale would show no such thing.
How is that not the very definition of deceit? Because it's easy to figure out? I suppose a bad lie is somehow not a lie.
I wish someone from TNR would respond to (actually, apologize for) jhildner's first comment above.
It's manifestly dishonest to present three charts purporting to show the same thing (correlation between unemployment and presidential approval) even though a consistent scale would show no such thing.
How is that not the very definition of deceit? Because it's easy to figure out? I suppose a bad lie is somehow not a lie.