Why Obama Is Unpopular
Published in La Repubblica
(Italy) on 15 October 2010
by Luigi Zingales (link to original)
(Italy) on 15 October 2010
by Luigi Zingales (link to original)
Translated from
by Brittany Fowler.
Edited by Patricia Simoni.
His moderate constituency is discontented with the reforms he has made thus far … because they are too radical.
Who was a better president: George Bush or Barack Obama? This is not a joke but rather a question posited by a recent poll conducted by CNN. Surprisingly, 45 percent of Americans replied Bush, almost the same number that responded Obama (47 percent). How is it possible that the actual American president, who enjoyed the support of 65 percent of Americans during his inauguration, has been reduced to a consensus of only 48 percent*? How is it possible that the percentage of those who disapproved of him jumped from 16 percent to 41 percent? How is it possible that he is regarded in the same manner as George Bush?
From Italy, it is difficult to understand. President Obama maintained the majority of his election promises (health reform, withdrawal from Iraq, reduction of taxes for 95 percent of the population), notwithstanding the fact that he found himself dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. His administration has not been hit by a great scandal, and he has made himself a promoter of some very forward-looking reforms (such as the education reform I described in an earlier column). What is the cause of this fall that risks causing the Democrats to lose the majority of both the House and the Senate?
To understand, we need to look back at the success of Obama’s electoral campaign. Though coming from the Democratic left, Obama won by winning over the independents with a message that went beyond the traditional ideological divisions. “There are no blue states or red states, only the United States of America,” the then-candidate Obama loved to repeat. His positions, pragmatic and a little technocratic, pleased the independents that hold the balance of power in the American electoral system. Obama even succeeded in tearing away from the Republicans the weapon of fiscal cuts: During the elections, 31 percent of Americans believed that Obama would cut taxes versus the 11 percent that believed McCain would do it. The Obama electoral campaign was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s in that when he became a candidate, he moved away from more radical positions in favor of the center of the political axis, winning over a consistent piece of the moderate electorate who were further dubbed “Reagan Democrats.”
As president though, Obama has not governed like Reagan or Clinton, turning toward the center of the political alignment, but as an exponent of the Democratic left. Instead of advancing moderate proposals and imposing them on the most radical wing of Democrats in Congress, Obama adopted proposals from the far-left wing of the Democrats, then found himself compelled to scale them down to obtain the support of moderate Democrats. The result is that, on the big reforms, the majority of Americans (and even more so, the majority of the independents) didn’t follow him. To begin with, let’s look at the massive fiscal stimulus approved as soon as he was elected president. The polls indicate that Americans would have preferred (by a margin of almost 3-to-1) a more moderate fiscal package.
The same holds true for health care reform. Notwithstanding the fact that, principally speaking, this reform was desired by the majority of Americans, the approved text finds consensus only among 45 percent of voters, while 54 percent are against. The last example is the reform of the financial system. The majority of Americans wanted an intervention in this arena. Nevertheless, the last poll conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management indicates that only 12 percent of those polled declared themselves satisfied or very satisfied by the Dodd-Frank law approved in July, whereas 54 percent declared that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. In this case it seems that Obama failed in both objectives of the reform. Only 34 percent of those interviewed believe that the consumer protection agency created by the new law is useful, and only 33 percent believe that the measures introduced are sufficient enough to prevent the necessity of future bank bailouts.
Is Obama perhaps condemned to be president for only one term? Absolutely not. The best thing that could happen to him would be for the Republicans to win the majority of both sides of Congress. This would compel Obama to become that which he promised to be: a president who goes beyond partisan divisions and seeks a compromise for the betterment of the country — in the center.
*Editor’s Note: This percentage, accurately translated, in fact refers to the previously mentioned figure of 47 percent.
Who was a better president: George Bush or Barack Obama? This is not a joke but rather a question posited by a recent poll conducted by CNN. Surprisingly, 45 percent of Americans replied Bush, almost the same number that responded Obama (47 percent). How is it possible that the actual American president, who enjoyed the support of 65 percent of Americans during his inauguration, has been reduced to a consensus of only 48 percent*? How is it possible that the percentage of those who disapproved of him jumped from 16 percent to 41 percent? How is it possible that he is regarded in the same manner as George Bush?
From Italy, it is difficult to understand. President Obama maintained the majority of his election promises (health reform, withdrawal from Iraq, reduction of taxes for 95 percent of the population), notwithstanding the fact that he found himself dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. His administration has not been hit by a great scandal, and he has made himself a promoter of some very forward-looking reforms (such as the education reform I described in an earlier column). What is the cause of this fall that risks causing the Democrats to lose the majority of both the House and the Senate?
To understand, we need to look back at the success of Obama’s electoral campaign. Though coming from the Democratic left, Obama won by winning over the independents with a message that went beyond the traditional ideological divisions. “There are no blue states or red states, only the United States of America,” the then-candidate Obama loved to repeat. His positions, pragmatic and a little technocratic, pleased the independents that hold the balance of power in the American electoral system. Obama even succeeded in tearing away from the Republicans the weapon of fiscal cuts: During the elections, 31 percent of Americans believed that Obama would cut taxes versus the 11 percent that believed McCain would do it. The Obama electoral campaign was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s in that when he became a candidate, he moved away from more radical positions in favor of the center of the political axis, winning over a consistent piece of the moderate electorate who were further dubbed “Reagan Democrats.”
As president though, Obama has not governed like Reagan or Clinton, turning toward the center of the political alignment, but as an exponent of the Democratic left. Instead of advancing moderate proposals and imposing them on the most radical wing of Democrats in Congress, Obama adopted proposals from the far-left wing of the Democrats, then found himself compelled to scale them down to obtain the support of moderate Democrats. The result is that, on the big reforms, the majority of Americans (and even more so, the majority of the independents) didn’t follow him. To begin with, let’s look at the massive fiscal stimulus approved as soon as he was elected president. The polls indicate that Americans would have preferred (by a margin of almost 3-to-1) a more moderate fiscal package.
The same holds true for health care reform. Notwithstanding the fact that, principally speaking, this reform was desired by the majority of Americans, the approved text finds consensus only among 45 percent of voters, while 54 percent are against. The last example is the reform of the financial system. The majority of Americans wanted an intervention in this arena. Nevertheless, the last poll conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management indicates that only 12 percent of those polled declared themselves satisfied or very satisfied by the Dodd-Frank law approved in July, whereas 54 percent declared that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. In this case it seems that Obama failed in both objectives of the reform. Only 34 percent of those interviewed believe that the consumer protection agency created by the new law is useful, and only 33 percent believe that the measures introduced are sufficient enough to prevent the necessity of future bank bailouts.
Is Obama perhaps condemned to be president for only one term? Absolutely not. The best thing that could happen to him would be for the Republicans to win the majority of both sides of Congress. This would compel Obama to become that which he promised to be: a president who goes beyond partisan divisions and seeks a compromise for the betterment of the country — in the center.
*Editor’s Note: This percentage, accurately translated, in fact refers to the previously mentioned figure of 47 percent.