It has been eight months since Obama took charge and that new president smell is finally starting to fade away. Recently, a new poll by Qunnipiac University found Obama’s approval rating to be at an even 50 percent causing conservatives to observe Obama’s immediate doom and liberals to attack, oddly enough, old people. What the two sides share in common, however, is the idea that Obama is somehow exceptional, and exclusive from historical norms.
History, however, would beg to differ. After all, Obama’s seven month rating falls right into line with George Bush’s, which was at 55 percent, while Clinton was at 44 percent. Mid-term, Bush and Clinton received 53 and 57 percent respectively. George H.W. Bush held a lofty 69 percent – even Tricky Dick and Jimmy Carter a solid 62 and 60 percent rating, at the beginning of their terms. By mid-term Bush held at 63, Nixon and Carter sharing a 50 percent approval rating.
So, to say a 50 percent approval rating, 200 days into Obama’s presidency, is a sign of things to come would be foolish. He isn’t plummeting, he isn’t soaring, he’s just, well, historically average.
What’s interesting, however, and what Dick Polman, of philly.com picked up on, is why Obama is at 50 percent. According to a survey by Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster, Maryland independents were worried at the speed with which Congress and the White House are moving, but that people, by and large, like Obama’s personality.
Eyes may be rolling, but it is a factor to consider, as Polman observes:
“Hart’s observation might strike you as superficial. But it’s important to remember that, back in the early ’80s, Ronald Reagan’s personality was lauded far more than his policies. His personal bond with the electorate helped him weather the tough times – especially during his first couple years, when there were few indications that his conservative agenda would pull the nation out of a crippling recession. (Obama-haters may not want to hear this: Reagan’s job approval rating stood at 42 percent in 1982, when the jobless rate hit a 40-year high.)”
Like Reagan, Obama understands the importance of charisma and how far it can get you. In fact, Hart’s survey found that most people appreciate Obama’s television appearances, much to the chagrin of some news networks and the declining viewership of press conferences.
The Republicans, however, aren’t faring as well as Obama; their approval rating is at a dismal 20 percent. During the Bush years the Democratic Party averaged around 36 percent. This puts the Republicans in on some shaky ground. Currently, they lack a charismatic leader to magnetize independents and the only method of attack they have is the fear of rapid change, as Hart’s survey suggests:
“Yet, at the same time, they told Hart that they don’t want to see too much too quickly. As Hart writes, “they are wary of rapid change and want to understand and digest any major policies…(Their) biggest worries are about the amount of money the government is spending and the speed at which it is making significant changes to how the country operates.” In the words of one participant, a young teacher, “The speed that he’s doing things – it’s a little bit of a gamble.””
What Polman touches on, and what both Democrats and Republicans should realize, is the future is a fickle thing. It is unpredictable, and there’s little anyone can correctly predict. The reactions to Obama’s ratings are politics as usual: if the guy in office isn’t on your side – attack. If he is, then circle the wagons and maintain the status quo. This isn’t the politics of change, but the politics of the same, as the Examiner’s Byron York notes:
“Back in 2001, I asked a well-connected Democratic strategist what Bush’s low-50s numbers meant for Democrats. The answer I got is outdated in its details but spot-on about what falling poll numbers mean. “The numbers…tell Tom Daschle to push full steam ahead on patients’ bill of rights and make Bush veto it,” the strategist said. “They tell Dick Gephardt to push full steam ahead on a discharge petition and a vote on campaign finance reform and make the president veto it. They tell Democrats to push full steam ahead on the environment.””
Both parties press the attack when given the chance, that’s no surprise. Perhaps the reaction to his ratings is an overreaction to his historical presidency. David Paul Kuhn, of Real Clear Politics suggests the only shock and apprehension of the poll results is the media’s:
“But the media played a big role in crowning Obama a historical figure. The political media played a big role in misinforming the American public of their purported lofty view of this president. Therefore, we are responsible for the supposed shock at Obama’s average standing.”
And with lofty views come lofty expectations, but perhaps the media’s misinformation has resulted in the shock of electing an exceptionally average president, and nothing more.
