(4.8.2009) "The Most Polarizing President" (Washington Post)

[Jester]

The Most Polarizing President
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703378.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times? Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?

No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama. According to the Pew Research Center, the gap between Republican and Democratic approval ratings for Bush a few months into his first term was about 51 percentage points. For Obama, this partisan gap stands at 61 points. Obama has been a unifier, of sorts. He has united Democrats and united Republicans -- against each other.

The Pew report notes that this is the extension of a long-term trend. Decades ago, a majority of Democrats approved of Richard Nixon's job performance early in his first term. A majority of Republicans did the same for Jimmy Carter. But that has not been true for any president since.

Ron Brownstein, the author of "The Second Civil War," cites a variety of structural reasons for intensified division. There has been a "sorting out" of the political parties, making each more ideologically uniform. Long, nasty presidential campaigns stoke our differences. Media outlets have become more partisan. Ideological interest groups have proliferated. Congressional leaders have changed the rules, making it easier to impose party discipline.

But Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship. During the presidential campaign, chief strategist David Axelrod told Brownstein, "If there's an enhanced Democratic majority, I think that he's going . . . to urge a special sense of responsibility to try and forge coalitions around these answers, not because we won't be able to force our will in many cases, but because, ultimately, effective governance requires it in the long term."

That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majority forced its will. Republicans were flattened, not consulted. Democratic leaders talk of enacting controversial elements of the budget through the "reconciliation" process -- which would require 51 Senate votes, not the normal 60, for passage. Only in Washington would the word "reconciliation" refer to a form of partisan warfare.

Without Republican input or influence, the budget is a tax-and-spend caricature. Obama has complained of inheriting a $1.3 trillion debt. According to economist Michael Boskin, Obama's proposals would add $6.5 trillion in debt over the next decade -- about $163,000 for every American taxpaying family.

I am not generally a deficit hawk. A government can run a responsible deficit in a growing economy -- and may have to run one to counteract an economic downturn. But Obama's proposed level of debt is irresponsible. It makes broad tax increases nearly inevitable. It expands our dependence on China, America's loan officer. And it creates pressure for the government to purchase or monetize debt, leading to inflation. No Republican, even of the moderate variety, could accept a budget that spends America into unsustainable debt by completely avoiding the setting of realistic priorities. And none in Congress did.

There is an argument in favor of political polarization. Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, in their time, were polarizing presidents precisely because they were ambitious presidents. They believed that some national goals were worth the sacrifice of amity. A decisive leader is sometimes a divisive leader.

But Obama's polarizing approach challenges and changes the core of his political identity. His moderate manner and message appealed to a country weary of division and ambition -- a nation now asked to endure another round of both. But Obama's domestic agenda is also resoundingly typical -- as though he were some conventionally liberal backbench senator suddenly thrust into immense influence. Which, of course, he is.

It would have been relatively easy for President Obama to divide the Republican coalition, peeling off less-partisan Republicans with genuine outreach. Many Republicans were prepared to accept short-term deficits to stimulate the economy in exchange for long-term fiscal responsibility. Obama could have focused more narrowly on resolving the financial crisis -- the key to all economic recovery -- and delayed his ambitions on other issues to a more realistic time. In the process, he might have gotten some Republicans to share his political risks instead of nursing grievances on the sidelines.

Polarization in American politics has its own disturbing momentum, aided by some strident Republican voices. But that does not require a president to make it worse. And it is a sad, unnecessary shame that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division.


.......

[OzDemocrat]

The partisan gap in recent polls is exasperated by two things:

1. The percentage of the population who identify (to pollsters) as republicans is at an all time low. Those who do are the hardcore.

2. Democrats (who conversely are represented at a high) really really like him (more than any other recent president by their respective party at this point in).

[The_Basseteer]

I didn't notice any mention in the poll of the number of people in the poll..nor who identified themselves as a Dem.or a Rep.\

[Laura Cereta]

I won't speak to the validity of the polls, but I think it's true the country has been divided even more than in other President's first few months. Maybe that's because *Obama has pushed through a lot of huge things that have got Repubs outraged. Let's get real on the unity issue, though; it was nothing more than political talk. People should not have believed it. It's just not realistic.

[Jester]

This is getting monotonous. Poll O crew likes --- can't deny a poll. Its a fact, deal with it. Poll O crew dislikes --- well, you can't trust these polls. Let me put my spin on it.

The other dynamic is Obama says something cut and past like: We know we have to do A, but we cannot deny B.

No O says "crap, did you hear what he said about B !!!

O crew responds "take off te tin foil hat. He is doing A. You are reading too much into this. "

Time passes and Obama does B.

No O says "I told you he was going to do B"

O crew responds "of course he did. He told you he would. This is not news to anybody."

It is getting very tiresome.

[Laura Cereta]

This is getting monotonous. Poll O crew likes --- can't deny a poll. Its a fact, deal with it. Poll O crew dislikes --- well, you can't trust these polls. Let me put my spin on it.

The other dynamic is Obama says something cut and past like: We know we have to do A, but we cannot deny B.

No O says "crap, did you hear what he said about B !!!

O crew responds "take off te tin foil hat. He is doing A. You are reading too much into this. "

Time passes and Obama does B.

No O says "I told you he was going to do B"

O crew responds "of course he did. He told you he would. This is not news to anybody."

It is getting very tiresome.

Yeah, the massive cannon between what *Obama says and does is tiresome. This is what he has a history of, though. It's part of what made the primaries so frustrating-- one candidate brought experience to the table and another brought empty rhetoric-- "hope, change, unity, blah, blah, blah."

[The_Basseteer]

I HOPE I at least have some CHANGE left in my pockets.

[Alces95]

Yeah, the massive cannon between what *Obama says and does is tiresome. This is what he has a history of, though. It's part of what made the primaries so frustrating-- one candidate brought experience to the table and another brought empty rhetoric-- "hope, change, unity, blah, blah, blah."

*Laura-

I think Obama underestimated his political opposition's stubborness. I truly think he would like unity and to govern more from the center but I don't see him getting support from his opponents in any way shape or form no matter what he does. He'll go where he gets support.
I know I misunderstood it. I always thought of republicans and the right as wanting the greater good and working towards solutions. Heck even some Clinton supporters have surprised me.
Right now, I see no solutions from either side, *Laura, just empty rhetoric that rehashes the past and attempts to makes oneself look good at any cost. Seems like a popular stance to take as opposed to moving the country forward.
Will we ever get someone who really believes in the, "It doesn't matter who gets the credit..." concept and actually get things done in Washington? Some people will never accept him and belittle him no matter what. From the day he was elected, some folks never gave him a chance, don't you think *Laura?

[Laura Cereta]

*Laura-

I think Obama underestimated his political opposition's stubborness. I truly think he would like unity and to govern more from the center but I don't see him getting support from his opponents in any way shape or form no matter what he does. He'll go where he gets support.
I know I misunderstood it. I always thought of republicans and the right as wanting the greater good and working towards solutions. Heck even some Clinton supporters have surprised me.
Right now, I see no solutions from either side, *Laura, just empty rhetoric that rehashes the past and attempts to makes oneself look good at any cost. Seems like a popular stance to take as opposed to moving the country forward.
Will we ever get someone who really believes in the, "It doesn't matter who gets the credit..." concept and actually get things done in Washington? Some people will never accept him and belittle him no matter what. From the day he was elected, some folks never gave him a chance, don't you think *Laura?

I like how you used the asterisk by my name... But I didn't cheat to get my current job, or the last one, or the last one... you get the picture. They add asterisks to baseball players names when they are found to have engaged in unethical behavior on the way to their accomplishments.

You don't have that many post here to be calling me out and making assumptions, but that's O.K. I'll be happy to address them. I have no problem giving *Obama credit where credit is due. I was very happy that his Attorney General will no longer be sending federal agents into CA's medical marijuana shops. I was happy with the closing of Gitmo, though I think it was slightly rushed. I was and am happy with his choice of Hillary for SoS, and I'm glad that he seems to be working closely with her.

That being said, the idea of "can't we all just come together and get along?" is just not realistic. I don't blame *Obama completely; I'm only charging him for campaigning on empty rhetoric. If he did not understand the heavy entrenchment of our two party system, maybe he should not have run for President. Our current Congress is just as much at fault-- both parties. Why would *Obama think he could sweep into Washington and change the climate there? Either his opinion of himself is that grandiose or he just flat out lied. I'm not sure which it is.

Oh BTW, your quote, "It doesn't matter who gets the credit..." I've heard that before, that government would be much more efficient if we weren't all worried about who gets credit. Guess where I heard it from? Gov. Palin.

[Suzan]

I think Obama underestimated his political opposition's stubborness. I truly think he would like unity and to govern more from the center but I don't see him getting support from his opponents in any way shape or form no matter what he does. He'll go where he gets support.
I know I misunderstood it. I always thought of republicans and the right as wanting the greater good and working towards solutions.

Or ... perhaps Obama's opposition overestimated his willingness to reach out to them in bipartisan fashion? If Obama really wanted support, say on his gigantic stimulus bill, why didn't he give Republicans the opportunity to comment and have input? They weren't even given a chance to read the bill before a vote was forced.

Heck even some Clinton supporters have surprised me.

What surprises me about some Obama supporters is their seeming inability to understand why people might be upset with him ... since he does no wrong, of course.

[OzDemocrat]

I won't speak to the validity of the polls, but I think it's true the country has been divided even more than in other President's first few months. Maybe that's because *Obama has pushed through a lot of huge things that have got Repubs outraged. Let's get real on the unity issue, though; it was nothing more than political talk. People should not have believed it. It's just not realistic.
Maybe.

Maybe its because, as the article actually mentions, todays partisan media now provides a strong pulpit for the side out of power, and stoking discontent is identified as the easiest way to improve ratings?

Lets ignore the many reports of the whitehouse taking a more centralist stance on issues like national security and drug legalisation than voters or fellow party members would like. It doesnt fit with the message of partisanship that the other side has crafted by.. being partisan.

After making initial efforts to rally support of all members from both houses behind a plan, the democrats did indeed push through things that "have got republicans outraged". Or that republicans got outraged over democrats pushing through without letting them score political points off. One or the other. Bottom line: there was outrage.

Should democrats have acted otherwise?

With an canyon like ideological difference along party lines on how to best address the current financial state - exactly how many weeks after the first should the party with the majority in all three branches of government spend attempting to reconcile with the party with no power but whome many lay the responsibility for said crisis with?

What exactly would the unemployment rate be in our hypothetical-world when the two parties finally reached a consensus? How happy do you imagine the population would be if congress took so long, considering we very recently had what was effectively a referendum on exactly this topic (we called it an "election", many people identified "economy" as reason the for voting as they did).

Heres the alternative solution to the deadlock:
1. Everyone admit theres a crisis that needs immediate attention.
2. The party that the majority of american voters elected propose a solution, and
3. The party in opposition step out of their ******* derangement bubble which is the only place they still call the shots, and instead concentrate on being a responsible opposition party proposing amendments and solutions that appeal to the majority of amreicans, rather than grandstanding and expecting the majority of amreicans to agree with their solutions.

And before people get started: by all accounts this is not what the Obama administration wanted.

The current administration would very much have liked to not be burning through political capital fixing a broken economy, which (as with their opponents) was only a late addition to the platform they campaigned on. Their proposed health care reform that, while inferior (imho) to that proposed by the Clinton team, was clearly designed to appeal to a more centralist line. They would have much preferred to be spending this time building a consensus around that and other important social reform issues members from both parties could agree on, but it was not to be. This other job needed doing, and theyre doing it.

This is getting monotonous. Poll O crew likes --- can't deny a poll. Its a fact, deal with it. Poll O crew dislikes --- well, you can't trust these polls. Let me put my spin on it.
Strawman - you love using them dont you? No ones denying this poll or any other (that has made efforts to represent reality, internet polls do not). In fact i like this poll.

What i dont agree with is the focus (spin as you put it) by right commentators on one aspect of it, with the intent of casting negatives on the administration - when in fact the numbers tell us a lot more about the opposition.

Obama's total approval is bested last by Reagan (who pips him by 1pt).

Obama has the highest approval rating within his own party of any president in recent years.

You have to go back over 25 years to Reagan again to find a politician with a higher approval amongst independents.

If we're going to focus on the differences between affiliations, why leave independents out? Surely those without a party affiliation can offer some insight:

Unlike any recent republican leader, independents today sit equally between the party numbers rather than clearly favoring the opposition. Only with Clinton and Carter do independents poll closer to the sitting presidents party numbers - and this is within the margin that Obama holds over those presidents for own party support.

But this is the most interesting part to me:

Candidate | Opposition-Independent Difference
Obama -30
Bush -20
Clinton -21
Bush -7
Regan -20
Carter -14
Nixon -10

At no point in recent polling history has the opinion of supporters of the opposing party differed so much from that of independents. And by a huge amount, we're talking a ratio of almost 3:2 to the nearest contender.

Theres the story these numbers really tell. Not that Obama differs so much from his detractors, but that the detractors differ so much from the rest of the population. Keep digging GOP - youll get out of that hole soon!

[Wyoming Dem]

I think there is absolutely partisanship and both sides are equally to blame. Hence, there were unknown numbers like me (after being a Dem and voting Dem for 40 years) who left the party. I always thought I knew what evil (in my mind) lurked withing the recesses of the Republican Party, I was NOT prepared however, for the absolutely rigged, fraudulent and vote-stifling actions of the Dem Party (via the DNC.) The Dems did all the horrible things they have always accused the Republicans of, only they did them bigger, bolder and with less apology and because of those actions, we are being forced to allow ourselves to be governed by a inexperienced, criminally associate baggage-laden totally unsophisticated and laughable excuse for a POTUS, in times that DEMANDED we had the best. Well, we did not get best, we did not even get second place.

Obama never qualified his rhetoric with "I will end bi-partisanship...IF those mean old Pubs will come around. He went on and on and on, ad nauseam about his self-proclaimed abilities to reach across the aisle and MAKE those Republicans see the error of their ways. For me personally, it is just one more instance when Obama's words don't match his deeds. He sold this country out at G2 and the media has failed utterly to inform America of just how badly they were given the all-to-familiar shaft. So I agree with this pole, he is polarizing, irregardless of his statements to the contrary. And there have actually been about 6 different polls, all saying about the same thing.

And yes...all my comments are just my feelings and not facts and I do not claim otherwise, save for his comments on "reaching across the aisle".

[Jester]

Obama Approval Rating Stable, Polarized
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx

Yes, it must just be spin that all the major pollsters agree upon.

Obama's major approval comes from having a villain. As time goes on and Obama has to achieve approval by merit, his ratings will drop. With all the money thrown at Obama, he should at least be able to artificially inflate a recovery. Even last year's much smaller stand alone stimulus did that.

In just the last week, sold out the USA at the G20, NK punked Obama with 0 consequences & no *new era* help from Russia & China, pirates are now taking US hostages, our utilities operating grid need a clean install just to be sure we still own it, the CBC *looked Fidel in the eye* and whined about racism.

So now we will get the typical "I don't like this policy or that policy, but I love Obama. He gets it. What? It!"

Keep digging that hole Obama/Extreme Dems.

[Jester]

And yes...all my comments are just my feelings and not facts and I do not claim otherwise, save for his comments on "reaching across the aisle".

Well, polls aren't really facts either. If that was the case, then just about every American couldn't argue that Iraq was a bad choice considering the polls suggested otherwise.

The real story here is that O has become what he claimed Hillary was ... the most polarizing Dem. The reason O wasn't as polarizing in 2007 would be because very few had an opinion on him.

[Jester]

Heres the alternative solution to the deadlock:
1. Everyone admit theres a crisis that needs immediate attention.
2. The party that the majority of american voters elected propose a solution, and
3. The party in opposition step out of their ******* derangement bubble which is the only place they still call the shots, and instead concentrate on being a responsible opposition party proposing amendments and solutions that appeal to the majority of amreicans, rather than grandstanding and expecting the majority of amreicans to agree with their solutions.


Ok, let's go back and forth on which man is the most flammable. Obama has been called on this "they bring nothing to the table" bluff time and again.

[carmaken]

None of us going back on this forum have forgotten what went down over the last year. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I did NOT vote for Obama. (I didn't vote for McCain either.) That's just it--for me, I did not vote for the first time in 24 years.

All of the things you have said in this thread have truth. Obama doesn't have full confidence in the eyes of many of us. I think he will forever be proving himself to millions of voters. He polarized himself into people forever changing their politics. We saw our Democratic Party leaders sell themselves out to him. We were all dumbfounded and outraged. He will never be trusted to some of us.

In a nutshell, yes he has been the most polarizing president, and not in the way that people think.

[Jester]

In a nutshell, yes he has been the most polarizing president, and not in the way that people think.

And don't forget Obama's unforgivable Harry & Louise attacks on Hillary Clinton. Even worse than calling her Bush-lite in early 2007.

[Alces95]

I like how you used the asterisk by my name... But I didn't cheat to get my current job, or the last one, or the last one... you get the picture. They add asterisks to baseball players names when they are found to have engaged in unethical behavior on the way to their accomplishments.

You don't have that many post here to be calling me out and making assumptions, but that's O.K. I'll be happy to address them. I have no problem giving *Obama credit where credit is due. I was very happy that his Attorney General will no longer be sending federal agents into CA's medical marijuana shops. I was happy with the closing of Gitmo, though I think it was slightly rushed. I was and am happy with his choice of Hillary for SoS, and I'm glad that he seems to be working closely with her.

That being said, the idea of "can't we all just come together and get along?" is just not realistic. I don't blame *Obama completely; I'm only charging him for campaigning on empty rhetoric. If he did not understand the heavy entrenchment of our two party system, maybe he should not have run for President. Our current Congress is just as much at fault-- both parties. Why would *Obama think he could sweep into Washington and change the climate there? Either his opinion of himself is that grandiose or he just flat out lied. I'm not sure which it is.

Oh BTW, your quote, "It doesn't matter who gets the credit..." I've heard that before, that government would be much more efficient if we weren't all worried about who gets credit. Guess where I heard it from? Gov. Palin.

What percentage of posts do I need to have in order to particpate fully? I would have been posting for a long time but new entries were blocked.

I'm glad you felt the point of me putting an asterisks next to your name, didn't it feel like I gave you any respect at all did it? Enough for you to point out that I was a newbie right?

Thats my point. What I hope never happens again was that Bush (now theres a name that deserves much punctuation!) did some things that made some refuse to see some of the good that he did do. That includes me. Bush could do nothing right in many eyes no matter what he did. I think the worst thing we can do is have more years (4 or 8, who knows) blind opposition to the president. As a country we just can't do that again. I am glad for what you wrote, some of the things that you like that he has done but I challenge you to let him start from a level playing field. I think we disagree on whether he deserves that askerisks but I am pretty sure I am in the minority here.

I do actually think that he hopes to bring folks together. I think it is more of an uphill battle than he thought and some of his recent actions focred the political hands of his opponents to be stubborn. Personally, I hope he is successful and will try to do my part and try to see both sides.

Palin stole it from the same place I did - Truman. He was right then and it is now. I saw Palin as a bit more conservative than I was looking for in November. She was not good at handling media and they didn't give her many breaks so just not a good few months for her. Time will tell if she is able to come back. I think the "cultural warriors" will be pulling for her.

[Jester]

I think the worst thing we can do is have more years (4 or 8, who knows) blind opposition to the president. As a country we just can't do that again.

Or even worse, blind support by apologists. I think many here have given Obama credit on some social issues (social issues that do not require money but just a POV change). On the economy, Obama has been a huge failure, but that is not a surprise to me. Anybody with any economic common sense could see his economic theories were based in what feels good as opposed to what is good.

And on energy, Obama has chased me over to betting on Chinese energy after holding American energy stocks with anemic gains. Even the O crew have a very difficult time saying what his energy plan is beyond the opening salvo of "wind, solar, biomass". That is the extent of it.

On Health Reform, he wants coverage without preconditions. Great we all want that. The real question is how. And the $634 billion (or something close to that) is a downpayment. 20%.. 10%. 50%? And where did that money come from? Does it have a very detailed plan on hitting the most necessary reforms to get the biggest return quickly? Nobody knows. I've heard numbers of $1.5 to $2.5 trillion, and those are just whispers.

People are screaming "ok, we got the generics of your plans. You don't need to keep repeating them. You need to start expanding." He isn't doing it. He isn't leading.

[hobbitt]

Why would *Obama think he could sweep into Washington and change the climate there? Either his opinion of himself is that grandiose or he just flat out lied. I'm not sure which it is.


And in his first reach-across-the-aisle opportunity:


Obama replied that an election had been held in November, “and I won. I will trump you on that,”


Nyeah nyeah.

[foxyladi]

I HOPE I at least have some CHANGE left in my pockets.

no big bills,,just change,,:rotfl:

[Laura Cereta]

What percentage of posts do I need to have in order to particpate fully? I would have been posting for a long time but new entries were blocked.

I'm glad you felt the point of me putting an asterisks next to your name, didn't it feel like I gave you any respect at all did it? Enough for you to point out that I was a newbie right?

Thats my point. What I hope never happens again was that Bush (now theres a name that deserves much punctuation!) did some things that made some refuse to see some of the good that he did do. That includes me. Bush could do nothing right in many eyes no matter what he did. I think the worst thing we can do is have more years (4 or 8, who knows) blind opposition to the president. As a country we just can't do that again. I am glad for what you wrote, some of the things that you like that he has done but I challenge you to let him start from a level playing field. I think we disagree on whether he deserves that askerisks but I am pretty sure I am in the minority here.

I do actually think that he hopes to bring folks together. I think it is more of an uphill battle than he thought and some of his recent actions focred the political hands of his opponents to be stubborn. Personally, I hope he is successful and will try to do my part and try to see both sides.

Palin stole it from the same place I did - Truman. He was right then and it is now. I saw Palin as a bit more conservative than I was looking for in November. She was not good at handling media and they didn't give her many breaks so just not a good few months for her. Time will tell if she is able to come back. I think the "cultural warriors" will be pulling for her.

I was not referring to your participation; I was referring to your assumptions. If it makes you feel better, then by all means use an asterisk with my name. Bringing up Bush's shortcomings does not change *Obama's election history, which is shady at best. I stand by my opinion that bipartisanship in this era is a fantasy.