RSS Feed MenuMy column for The Week can be read here. It opens:
President Obama got a heaping serving of good news in Monday’s Washington Post poll. He remains strongly personally popular, and the public’s heavy mood of pessimism has lifted somewhat: 42 percent now say the country is on “the right track,” nearly triple the number who thought so before the election—and the best number in five years.
It seems unlikely that this jump represents a reasoned response to the president’s actual policies, which have had little time to effect voters directly. Indeed, the poll only asked about one specific policy issue, the budget deficit. There, respondents gave Obama an approval rating 14 points lower than his overall score.
No, it’s not the policies the public is applauding. It is the energy, the perception of activity, a feeling (understandable enough) that something is finally being done! Once again, the American people are confirming the astute observation of Franklin Roosevelt that voters will forgive the errors of activist government more than “the constant omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”
And so they will. At least until the full costs of the errors of activist government come home.
sinz54 // Apr 2, 2009 at 11:59 am
David: The most recent Gallup poll gives Obama a 61% approval rating on his handling of foreign affairs, a 56% approval on his handling of the economy generally–but only a 49% approval rating on his handling of the Federal budget deficit. (44% disapprove of his handling of the deficit, so a plurality of Americans still approve.)So I don’t agree with you that it’s all a matter of perceptions. The Gallup poll suggests that on foreign affairs and on most economic matters other than the deficit (which to Americans probably means jobs), they really do approve of what Obama is doing.
fact based // Apr 2, 2009 at 6:07 pm
ah yes, don’t like the poll results argue that they can’t represent a “reasoned response ” to policiesbtw do they teach the correct usage of “affect” and “effect” at Harvard ?
fact based // Apr 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm
kudos for acknowledging in your column that “supply side economics” was nothing more than keynesian economic stimulus through deficit spending….with the added kick of a 7% cut in interest rates by the fed.
fact based // Apr 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm
you write:On healthcare, Obama proposes to balance immediate, certain and huge increases in government spending against future, speculative and unknown cost-savings. What Obama refuses to learn from the experience of other countries is that government healthcare programs end up spending more not just on healthcare but on everythinghospital laundry, cafeterias, pay for janitors and service technicians.where in the world do you think the money to pay for that is coming now ? Obviously it is built into every hospital bill for every treatment that is paid for by insurance, individual payees or medicare/medicaid. Ever worked for a business ? every heard of overhead ? the cost is built into the price of the goods sold ?
Mike K // Apr 2, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“The Gallup poll suggests that on foreign affairs and on most economic matters other than the deficit (which to Americans probably means jobs), they really do approve of what Obama is doing.”They just haven’t heard the iPod story yet. Give him time.There is a way to do health care reform without massive disruption and bankrupting the country. The French system is pluralistic and covers 99% of the population. It can be implemented step by step. That, of course, is not what he’s doing. I have a lengthy analysis on my blog.It begins there: http://abriefhistory.org/?p=400
ottovbvs // Apr 3, 2009 at 6:57 am
The basic problem with playing the fiscal responsibility card is that it has been neutralized by eight years of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. An admin of which David was part piled up the biggest annual budget deficits in history and essentially doubled the national debt. I can’t remember what it was called but whatever the antidote to Krytonite was the Democrats have it. The fact is they are perceived as being the party of fiscal responsibility and good management. This argument is only going to gain any traction if the US economy fails to respond to the Keynesian medicine it’s being given. And my bet is it is going to respond and by next summer Obama is going to be looking like a hero….the signs are already there if you can but read them. The bigger issue David is that I think it likely the public are going to love activist government.
Bulldoglover100 // Apr 3, 2009 at 7:08 am
David….I believe that people respond to being spoken to like adults. It’s not the nuts and bolts the normal American considers or spends time trying to figure out. It’s what they feel when he speaks to them. It makes them feel safe under his leadership.While we Republicans sit and try to explain to them how they are being thrown under the bus in many of the policies, all they hear is negative from the same group they aee as having put them in this position in the first place….do you or any Republican think they are going to listen to us whine..and that is all they hear, whining……we need to come up with policies and stop with the Obama bashing. It isn’t working and appears to be shoving our party down into the mud. Until we admit that not all of Obama’s policies are bad, and until we can offer GOOD solutions to what we feel Obama IS doing wrong, no one is going to listen and he will remain popular as be seen as someone who is doing their best when many around him are trying to sink him.You guys need to listen to the common man on the street, it’s pretty easy to see once you do.
ottovbvs // Apr 3, 2009 at 7:16 am
Mike K 6:33 PM”There is a way to do health care reform without massive disruption and bankrupting the country.” Utter nonsense Mike. One of the major structural problems facing the country is that the current system is already bankrupting the country and it has to be stopped. It’s also quite possible to introduce a hybrid universal program with little or no disruption because basically the “delivery” system will remain largely in private hands and be virtually unaffected by any changes at the “payer” level. The outlines of what they are going to do is already fairly clear and it’s going to do will be a win win at least in the medium term for all parties. Mandated insurance…Work or individually sourced….Insurance companies get more clients so they’re happy…..But not too happy because there’s going to be a public option….No rejections…..Subsidies for the poorest….Some price controls on drugs…and that’s about it. Over the longer term the drug companies, doctors and hospital systems are going to be forced to squeeze cost out of the system…we’re not going to spend a million keeping grandma alive for another six months…..and costs will start to move in the direction of those prevailing in other societies. It’s a form of rationing ultimately but the reality is that there has to be some rationing and American business can’t just keep picking up the tab for a very inefficient system. As a former manager of industrial businesses, it’s necessary and overdue.
ExGOPer // Apr 3, 2009 at 8:23 am
Bulldoglover is 100 percent correct. Anyone who belittles Obama’s popularity as merely “personal” shows that they have a tin ear. He’s popular because he’s acting in a responsible, reasonable take-charge way, talking to the nation like adults (at regular primetime news conferences, no less), and has even offered the GOP the opportunity to present a better mousetrap, which they couldn’t provide. I also agree with Otto that before Republicans sit on the sidelines and snipe at Obama, they’ve got to reestablish their own credentials as fiscally responsible. They’ve got to own up to much of the crisis that we’re in and stop blaming Barney Frank. It’s hard to offer your services as a fireman when you’ve already been exposed as an arsonist.
A. Wilson // Apr 3, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it difficult to have any sympathy for Frum’s complaints after he knee-capped his own party before the election:”If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a SMALL-TOWN MAYOR.” — David Frum, 8/29/08http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704Unbelievable.Considering the current stance of both McCain and Palin regarding the expansion of their respective governments beyond responsible stimulus, these two would obviously have been the superior choice on economic matters. Why in the world write snarky, arrogant and INACCURATE articles destined to be highlighted, magnified and gushed over by the Democrat-voting media?And somehow, given her basic world-view regarding American sovereignty and moral superiority, I think I’d feel far more secure foreign policy-wise in the hands of Sarah Palin, even IF she actually WAS merely a small-town mayor. Could she possibly be any worse than Joe “let’s do a nuclear freeze and let’s leave Saddam to Kuwait and let’s split up Iraq” Biden?Thanks for all your “help” with that last election, David.
free4all // Apr 4, 2009 at 1:18 am
First of all, as a newcomer to this site, let me say how refreshing it is to read comments that are typically civil and well-thought, instead of the knee-jerking, axe-grinding tirades that I see on other blogs.But on to my point Regarding the comment, I blame (Obama) for accompanying his borrowing with a slew of long- discredited statist interventions. I think that this comment begs the question, What is the role of the Federal government?In Americas history, its a question that initially pitted Jefferson against Hamilton, but has yet to be resolved to anyones satisfaction; particularly as it concerns the respective responsibilities of state governments versus the federal government. Conservatism has typically championed a diminished role of government, and the assertion of individual rights and freedoms. But unless youre packing a six-shooter, its the government that guarantees those rights and freedoms. The Bill of Rights could not exist without a government strong enough to protect and enforce them. And since weve evolved socially over time, weve recognized additional rights that had been previously moot; i.e., emancipation from slavery, voting for all adults, mitigating gender biases, etc. And, of course, the federal government extended its reach to guarantee those additional protections.Todays generation is witnessing a further expansion of government-guaranteed rights: The right to affordable medical care, the right to marry a person of the same sex, and the right to an equitable education. So, from my perspective, the challenge for conservatism is: To determine the appropriate role for government; i.e., what is a workable alternative to the administrations expansion of Federal responsibility? And unless yall come up with a well-defined set of alternatives, youre merely whining. And further, unless yall can win over the necessary support for those alternatives, youre unfortunately just spinning your wheels.
sinz54 // Apr 4, 2009 at 5:42 am
The problem is not that the GOP’s own track record on deficit spending has been poor. The new leaders, like Cantor and Jindal, weren’t the ones advocating wild spending.The problem is more basic–cutting the deficit is not a winning issue. It’s never won a Presidential election for either party in my lifetime.The GOP didn’t start to win elections until it could address the voters’ pocketbooks directly: Lowering taxes, reducing inflation, lowering unemployment.The GOP allowed Obama to actually get to the right of them with his promised middle-class tax cuts. That was a fatal mistake.So in their proposed “alternative” budget, what did the GOP propose this past week? Lowering the deficit by phasing out Medicare–with a hefty tax cut, not for middle-class Americans but for corporations. The GOP didn’t even exempt corporations that are receiving Federal bailout money from receiving this tax cut. There is nothing here to give the struggling middle class a break.This is a sign of the GOP returning to its reactionary roots of the 1940s and early 1950s–propelled by their dominant Southern and Southwestern wings. Only they could come up with a proposal to phase out Medicare, and announce it to the nation with a straight face, oblivious to public reaction in the rest of the nation. And this GOP will fail just like the GOP did back then.
sinz54 // Apr 4, 2009 at 6:07 am
ottovbs: No, that’s not quite “it,” as far as health care reform is concerned.The Obama plan is to make a public option available to *everybody*, regardless of means or income. And if the Government is able to price the premiums of that public option at a sufficiently attractive low level, they will drive the private insurers out of business, and we will be left with an essentially single-payer system. Which is, in fact, exactly what liberals want to see happen; surf to the liberal blogs and you can see them gleeful at the prospect of sneaking a single-payer system in this way. If the Postal Service had been subsidized to be able to price its package delivery far lower than UPS or FedEx, it would have driven those private companies out of business too. Would America have been better off with the resulting “single-payer” package delivery system?I don’t want to see a single-payer system, because I’ve been unhappy with many other government monopolies.So here’s my counter-proposal: The public health care option should either be a) means-tested; or b) be prevented from pricing its premiums at a rate lower than the national average for private insurance premiums with comparable coverage. Means testing is the basis of MassHealth, Massachusetts’ own public option for achieving universal coverage. Upper-middle-class yuppies are not eligible for it. Sorry, Obama.