Presidential Pitfalls: Obama’s Approval Ratings Drop to a New Low
Posted on 16. Dec, 2009 by James in American Politics
President Obama’s approval rating has dropped to 44%, the lowest of any president at this point in his administration. The 44% approval record did not come about by itself; it was not a result of an inherited economy, and it is not George Bush’s fault. The President has stepped in it often and of his own accord.
Pundits have offered that Obama is an agent of change and that change is never popular. However, in the case of Obama, he ran his campaign on one fundamental element: change. So “change” can not fully explain the dismal poll results. What is at the heart of the drop is the change that was offered versus the change that was delivered.
One criticism of Obama during the campaign was that he promised change but never defined that change. In the absence of detail, Obama worked his entire campaign around not being George Bush. Therefore, each new Obama voter had his or her own expectation for what that change would be. If the president had avoided the following pitfalls, he may have enjoyed some remnant of the popularity he had at the time of his inauguration.
Blaming the previous administration for the bad and taking credit for the good does not fly with the American people. Obama ran for office presumably because he thought that he could lead the country. It is time he act like a leader, accept responsibility for his policies, and stop blaming others for failure. There is no question that he inherited a troubled economy. But if you inherit a run down trailer you can either plant some flower boxes or decide to knock a few more holes in the walls. Obama has chosen the latter, and then blamed it on his neighbors.
There is an impression that repairing the economy is secondary to a host of social causes and pet projects. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that the stewardship of our economy is lacking. A housing crisis has turned into a credit crisis, and now a jobs crisis. Yet the only reaction of the government has been to open the checkbook. Spending on banks has not freed up credit, a $787 billion stimulus has not created jobs.
It is hard to reconcile, that knowing the first stimulus failed to create jobs (precisely because it was targeted at pet projects and had too many strings), Obama would now like to tap into the unused money from TARP. However, in doing so he proposes to place more strings on that money, and will target infrastructure repairs and clean energy. This is the same strategy used in the first stimulus, which did not create jobs because it was an agenda-based spending program first and an economic stimulus package second. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results.
The president has offered up only one solution to our economic trouble: more government. Anyone with foresight can see that tax increases are on the way, and for what? Tangible results are still sometime in the future, conflicting reports from the administration say on one hand, the economy is on the rebound, and on the other that we still need more taxpayer money in the system. Contradictions are the inevitable result of an administration that wants to take credit for the good indicators and pass blame for those that are negative.
Even as money from the first stimulus sits on the sideline, Obama is pressing for more spending. Government has tied the release of funds and credit to such mandates that there is a strangle hold on the flow of capital. Yet much time and energy has been given to regulate workers’ compensation. There is little interest in creating an atmosphere where jobs are created and too much emphasis on punishing success. Jobs are not the first priority of this administration. In fact, they rank somewhere below punishing/running big business, regulating carbon output, mandating health, supporting friends like ACORN, prosecuting American soldiers, holding beer summits, and host of other causes.
There is a perceived lack of interest in the management of our troops in harm’s way. President Obama knows neither how to win a war nor how to end one. The administration is even reluctant to call our military actions a war, opting instead for the term “overseas contingency action.” After disparaging the surge in Iraq, the president is wont to take credit for the outcome. After following the previous administration’s policies in Afghanistan, he decided to delay implementing suggestions from his generals only to opt for a surge-like strategy in the end. If there is one time to act decisively, it is with our military. Anything else smacks of fence-sitting and leaves our troops in danger.
It is still to be seen how his strategy will work out and what will happen if the mission can not be accomplished before the June 2011 withdrawal date. But one thing is certain; more consideration was given to how the public and the rest of the world would view his strategy than was given to how our troops will actually accomplish their mission.
Healthcare is a can of worms that might have been left for a later date. It is still hard to understand why healthcare is an all-or-nothing proposition with this administration. America is being forcefed a piece of 2000 page legislation that reforms Medicare, Medicaid, the insurance industry, doctors’ pay, and taxes, but leaves out tort reform. This all-or-nothing approach has been pushed through to the detriment of other plans that, though smaller in scope, would have remained with in the bounds of the Constitution and cut costs. The healthcare bill is pitched as a cost-cutting and a deficit reducing bill. The dishonesty of these claims leaves a bad taste in the mouth of fair-minded Americans who know when they are being sold a bill of goods.
The unfortunate part of the healthcare debate is that there is momentum for true reform. A bill that reforms Medicare and Medicaid to remove waste would have tremendous support. A bill to reform an out of control tort process would be supported by the American people. And reforms that bring market forces to bear on service providers and insurance companies alike would be well received. Instead, we will have a massive spending bill creating new entitlements, increasing bureaucracy, and contributing to runaway costs along with reduced benefits and higher taxes.
One of the most disturbing characteristics of the President is his arrogance and a condescending attitude. Asked over the weekend to grade himself on his first year, Obama gave himself a B+, a grade to which 56 percent of the country would take exception. The only way that Obama can be given a B+ is if he is measured on his implementation of a specific liberal agenda, but it would not bear out as the measure of an American leader.
Obama is the leader of America, and thus, of Americans. Some might say that we have elected our first Prime Minister, but we are not a European country; that is the system our forefathers fled. The American spirit is different than other countries, a look at our history will show this, yet Obama insists on degrading the American position on the world stage. A friendlier approach to our allies is fine, but an America that kowtows to dictators is not.
Obama speaks to the American public as though he is explaining the merits of wealth distribution to children. He has hitched his wagon to a Congress and an inner circle with a socialist agenda. Socialism is not the way of free men and free women. We are not a kept society dependent upon the masters in public office for our livelihood.
The numbers for Obama do not bode well for our current direction. A lot of decisions will affect the mood of the electorate between now and Election Day. At some point Obama needs to step up and take responsibility for the country and our predicament. A leader that can grab hold of our problems and offer more than platitudes would be refreshing. Until this leader emerges, we will be forced to watch as the administration pushes agenda over economy and government assistance over jobs.
I want to ask every Obama voter, was the "change" worth it?