Sunday, January 25, 2009

Two Americas...As Usual

TW: The "two Americas" meme is not new. Charlie Cook, who we like a great deal for relatively unbiased analysis, frames the current situation in a new "two Americas" meme. I would add the last bit to which Cook refers, bi-partisanship, is the least likely bit I foresee materializing (more on that later).

From Charlie Cook at National Journal:
"...There is an America that watched with hope and excitement as Barack Obama took the oath of office to become the 44th president of the United States. And there is an America that watched with dread and skepticism.

In the first and much larger group, there are many people who have a deep appreciation for the historic nature of Obama's presidency and a sense that he is the right person for the job and will do well. A subset of this group is so worried about the nation's economic problems that they hope Obama succeeds even though they didn't vote for him.

The second group is profoundly pessimistic. Because of his race and education, Obama is very different from any of their friends, neighbors, or co-workers. The people in this group are deeply suspicious of his motives. Some are afraid that he will dismantle our nation's military and leave America vulnerable. Others fear he will tax away everything they worked hard to accumulate. It's not exactly that they want Obama to fail but more that they feel they have little reason to believe that he will succeed in a way that helps them personally. Voters in this group rarely support a Democrat for president, but their pessimism about this particular Democratic president is especially acute. I doubt that Obama will ever be able to win these people over. The bigger question is whether they will ever accept him as president.

...In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, taken before Inauguration Day, the public was deeply pessimistic: 26 percent believe that the country is headed in the right direction, and 59 percent say that it is on the wrong track. However, those results are notably more optimistic than the 12 to 16 percent "right direction" and 73 to 78 percent "wrong track" numbers in the NBC/WSJ surveys taken in September and October. The mood shift is particularly notable, given that the economy has gotten even worse during that period.

...Although Americans are clearly clamoring for more unity and bipartisanship in Washington, only 48 percent expect to see it. Almost as many people, 45 percent, think the divisiveness will continue."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20090124_4074.php

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's where I disagree with Cook, and those who argue along the same lines: He suggests that the pessimistic America is so because of Obama's "education" and "race." The first suggesting that the pessimists are anti-Ivy league and the second that they are racist.

No doubt some people are.

But it's a mistake to ignore those genuine concerns and issues the pessimists may have by drawing the "ignorant-racist" veil across them.

For instance, Mr. White and I both know a college-educated coal miner whose 'dread' has everything to do with campaign promises Obama and Biden made about shutting down coal mines and making it extremely expensive to open new ones. The discussion of coal and what Obama's policy is actually going to be is a discussion for another day. Suffice to say here, that this particular pessimist is worried for very personal--and understandable--reasons.

I'm not going to blame him if he continues on his anti-Obama rant, regardless of how partisan it is in rhetoric, because a bi-partisan spirit wouldn't really help his concerns. And this is where Cook gets it right--that the pessimism where we find is often because of the score people tally up when they weight the concerns most personal to them.

A final question remains: What does Cook mean by "accept him as President"?

What's the content of that word "accept"? And have we been given a model of that "acceptance" by any Democrats in the last 8 years?

Does Obama or his people have any particular claim to "bi-partisanship"?

I count myself among those in the "hopeful" category at this point, and that's because what Obama's done and said since the election is far, far less left than everything he did and said in the campaign. But it'd probably help the these-guys-annoy-me factor if, at this point, the mouths calling upon the minority for "bi-partisanship" could at least fess up to a failure to lead by example in the recent past.

AP!

Trey White said...

Thanks for the comment.

You make a big leap from Cook's post to framing the issue in terms of anti-Ivy League and race/ignorant racist.

Recall Cook does polls, he is not making assertions based upon anecdote. He polls and mines traits amongst the respondents. Of course, not all respondents exhibit the traits but more do than those without those traits.

I will not discuss any "coal miners" as that gets personal,regardless of my opinion on that specific situation.

Regarding bi-partisanship. I think bi-partisanship is over-rated, that being said much of it is style (i.e. the way Obama handled the exec order on abortion funding, he changed it but not on the Roe anniversery but he did change it).

But mostly it is who ends up right. Had Bush been right about Iraq or had his economic policies actually worked one can safely assume that he would have had much greater "bi-partisan" support. Concurrently if Obama fails as a leader any bi-partisan support he has will prove as ephemeral as Bush's with Obama's remaining support derived from diehard Democrats.

Re Obama's being less "liberal" than he was in primary. Most POTUS move to the center, which Obama did during the general election.

Bush was an exception, he ran a compassionate conservative then morphed into a hardcore theocratic neo-con acolyte post 9-11.

What creates more dissonance? The one moving to the center once elected or vice versa.

Do not kid yourself, Obama has the left wing of his party sniping at him more than the conservatives. That will last about another week or so, the conservatives are going to come after Obama like crazy.

Re "acceptance", Cook said:

"Some are afraid that he will dismantle our nation's military and leave America vulnerable. Others fear he will tax away everything they worked hard to accumulate."

Presumeably if these opponents are merely worried about the above when Obama does not do either they will relax. Many already have hence Obama's approval ratings greatly exceeding his election margin.

My lack of acceptance of Bush related to very specific acts that he ACTUALLY took including but not limted to: tax policies greatly favoring the wealthy, injecting religion into American governance beyond that of previous POTUSes, initiating torture as a national policy, invading Iraq on false premises, ignoring our fiscal deficits, promoting a regulatory environment slanted even more heavily in favor of the regulated than it already was, siding almost blindly with Israel etc.

Any American is entitled to dissent, Charlie Cook is merely trying to sort through some motives. He hypothesizes the fear of the unknown is a material component of some of the opposition to Obama. If so, much of that will dissipate. Obviously fear of the unknown is only one component.

Finally, Bush had MASSIVE bi-partisan support post 9-11. He abused that support (Iraq, torture, deficits) leading to the counter-reaction of venomous opposition.