In response to Point: Americans Like Obama AND His Policies
There has been a topic being bounced around on BipartReport.com lately–mainly between @rblinne and myself. We both recognize that President is quite popular, but where @rblinne believes that Americans love what Obama is doing, I think President Obama is popular based on his persona, not on his policies. Poll after poll shows that while people believe that America is on the “Right Track” and “Moving in the Right Direction” and that they “Approve” of President Obama. When Obama’s policies are are polled without reference to him, though, a very different story is told.
Right track/wrong track and approve/disapprove polls are meaningless when discussing the “cult of personality” phenomena. If you ask “Do you support Obama banning lollipops?”, you will get a far higher positive response than if you say “Do you support the banning of lollipops?’. Polls have shown that when you separate policies from Obama, they are less popular. The exact opposite was true of Pesident Bush. If you asked “Do you support Bush’s position on the waterboarding of detainees?”, you got a far more negative response than if you asked “Do you support the waterboarding of detainees?”.
CNN ran a poll indicating that 63% of Americans approve of Obama, but when asked if they agree with his policies, the number dropped to 57%. This shows that there is a gap between Obama as a person and his policy positions. I don’t think this poll is truly accurate, though, becuase it still links Obama to his policies. If you look at how people view issues without Obama even being mentioned, you get a very different view
Americans have two different assessments of President Obama. One, personal. The other, policy.
CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider
Americans still see Big Government as a larger threat than Big Business
On April 20th, Gallup released a poll showing that the majority of Americans believe that Big Government is a greater concern than Big Business, 55% to 32% (with 10% being most concerned about Big Labor). Obama is pro-Big Government and Pro-Big Labor. If we break it down by party affiliation, Republicans are concerned about Big Government to Big Business by 80% to 10%, Independents 59% to 30%, with only Democrats favoring Big Government 52% to 32$.
Next policy: Obama is extremely pro-choice. He says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, but then in his first 100 days, he increases funding for abortions with federal dollars–with Obama it’s important to see what he does, rather than what he says, since he will talk on both sides of many issues. According to the May 15th Gallup poll, more American consider themselves Pro-Life than Pro-Choice on the abortion issue, 51% to 42%. @karoli and a few others have indicated that this is probably skewed, so let’s dissect it further. Only 23% believe that abortion should be “Legal Under Any” condition. Three quarters of the population believe that their should be limits on abortions–which is contrary to Obama’s pledged support of the Freedom of Choice Act.
Again, CNN-Only 36% of Americans believe that bailing out the auto industry would be beneficial. 55% of Democrats and 62% of Independents oppose the bailouts. The initial bailouts occurred under Bush, but no one argues that he was popular at the time.
According to an extensive Rasmussen survey, only 42% of Americans favor free health care for all, and that number drops to 32% if their own health care would be affected. By a two-to-one margin, people reject free healthcare for all if their 53% believe that their quality of health care will drop if it is run by the government. 54% would oppose the plan if it required slightly higher taxes.
In February with the passing of the “Stimulus” bill, only 51% percent supported the bill. While still a majority, it was significantly less than his personal support.
Again, according to Rasmussen, only 39% of Americans believe there is man made global warming, 44% believe that long term planetary trends are more to blame. Close to 80% of American oppose a tax to fight global warming. (It was not-polled, but I believe Cap and Trade and the new CAFE standards would qualify as a tax since it raises the cost of cars and energy. Another Rasmussen poll shows that only 24% know that Cap and Trade deals with global warming, 5% less than those who think it has to do with Wall Street!) Over 58% of Americans want more nuclear power plants, Obama is a self described “non-proponent” of nuclear energy.
According to CNN, 76% believe that the automakers should have faced bankruptcy, and only 23% believed that the government should have more oversight. Curiously, when Obama is mentioned, 42% of approve of his handling on the situtation whih was just that–more government involvement. How can that be? Only 23% thing government should be more involved and then once Obama is MORE involved, suddenly people support it? It is because they like HIM personally–not his policies.
And to bring it to the homefront, us Californians overwhelmingly rejected a series of propositions that would have increased multiple taxes–knowing full well that the only alternative was cuts in spending and services. Now, it’s not directly parallel, but I can guarantee you that cutting spending is NOT an Obama policy position. California, though a very blue state, rejected that position and told Sacramento to stop spending.
Of course California was home to another conundrum, Prop 8. First, Obama opposed Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, and yet it passed in one of the most pro-Obama states in the country. Mother Jones suggest that President Obama intentionally stayed quiet on Prop 8 because of its popularity with African-American voters. If I am right, then his coming out actually against Prop 8 would have actually made Prop 8 LESS popular, since people like Obama for who he is and not for his policies. In fact people will switch their stance on issues in order to align them to Obama’s. *cough* CIA photos *cough* *cough* Prosecution of Bush officials *cough*
So what?
It remains to be seen if this is a good or bad thing for Obama. If he is the influential leader that many suggest he is, he very well could sway people’s opinions and change people’s stances on these issues. This is not going to be easy for him, though, since many of the breakdowns (such as Big Government vs Big Business) have remained somewhat constant over the past few decades. If any President can accomplish this, it would be Barack Obama. Reagan had a similar influence, though he stood with the popular sentiment on many of the issues.
If President Obama is unsuccessful in bringing people to change their views, though, it could spell trouble. Sooner or later people will begin to wonder why Obama is doing things they don’t agree with. While many car purchasers may like the sound of a higher milage car, when they show up at the dealership and realize that it costs 2 grand more than it would have before Obama, they may begin to question their devotion to him. This is what I forsee happening.
When inflation hits, interest rates skyrocket and taxes go up, will President Obama be able to mainatin his populist appeal? We will see in the next two years.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Looks like you’ll be a regular here and I’m glad you are. My name is Dennis. Feel free to get an avatar at gravatar.com using the email you use to comment here and it will post beside all your comments without you having to do anything further. Many (most) of your colleagues who posted on the Mark Steyn column used fake names and fake email addresses so must not have had the conviction of their statements. I know your email to be valid because we’ve exchanged ideas off line.
Glad to have your opinions.
Dmoon,
You have to know that the statements you are using as fact to prove the lack of equip for the troops are taken way out of context. We went to war with what the army we had –based on intelligence that even Democrats agreed with ( I realize that they are trying to rewrite history on that matter). We ran over the the fifth largest army (Believe that figure to be correct) in three weeks. The war went exactly as planned until the end when we screwed up in the execution of rebuilding the country. That led to the insurgency and an IED war never experienced before. When the shortfalls were realized an all out procurement and deploying those new assets went into full scale. To deny that fact and try to rewrite history with partial truths is worn Dmoon and does yourself a disservice.
I also agee with Kyle in that Obama has to keep blaming Bush as he is trying to deflect his own reality in continuing to implement a policy that he derided but finds it is the correct policy.
P.S. Why is spell check not available for me onthese posts?
And if you remember, all Humvees on patrols in hostile areas WERE armored, the others were behind the lines and on “safe” routes. They have all since been upgrades, but at the time, they met the needs of the troops. We had never seen widespread use of IED’s before this war, nor had we anticipated them. We quickly adapted.
My point is that President Bush is going out and actively besmirching the Bush administration to better his own image. Have you ever seen a president use Memorial Day to attack his predecessor? President Obama’s Gitmo speech the other day mentioned “previous administration” many, many times and then he is upset that Dick Cheney is defending the “previous administration” that he is attacking?
If I had been Dick Cheney and heard the current president talking about my “moral failings” when I knew that I had saved thousands of lives, damn straight I would be out there fighting back!
Obama is going to ride the “blame Bush” horse until it dies. And I think it is going to die soon. He’s either able to lead the nation or he isn’t.
Well actually during Bush’s time there were parents sending their sons and daughter’s supplies that they were not getting from the Forces and lets not forget the Cher drive to provide soldiers with helmet linings. I’ll even quote a Fox News story about Operation Helmet . As early as 2003 soldiers did nt have adequate body armor. This 2005 story shows that bush went unprepared into ground combat.
I think you are on to something. He is doing many similar things, but changing the names. There will still be a Gitmo, it will just not be at Guantanamo Bay. He is spending $80 million to move the prison in a public relations move. “Man caused disasters” is just silliness, but it is an attempt to break free of the “War on Terror.”
I want to know when he will stop blaming Bush for everything. Even today, while giving a Memorial Day speech he made a comment that “we will always give you the supplies you need” as if evil Bush never had. How can he do this WHILE the only major cuts in government spending are at the expense of defense? It’s P.R.
President Obama is rapidly becoming Bush’s student. He is following the initial bailout and then tripling down on the monies. His foreign policy is close if not identical to Bush’s ranging from Iraq to North Korea. His plans to close GITMO are nothing more than renaming GITMO but still treating the prisoners basically the same. He will hold some indefinitely without charges and continue to try and release some just as Bush. Sounds like redefining terrorism as “Man caused disasters”. He suffers a setback when his Congress refuses to appropriate money to relocate the GITMO detainees. His plan to satisfy congress by moving them to supermax prisons here is falling apart as one of the intended prisons said they have room for just one prisoner. Could this be the beginning of his continuing the Bush legacy by keeping GITMO? It sounds like the rhetoric of “Hope and Change” has hit reality. Won’t this drive the left crazy!