Tweet
There are many benefits to the bully pulpit. The President can easily bring attention to a previously obscure issue and move it to the center of debate in Washington. As the de facto leader of a party, the President can also significantly sway the opinions of his base on a range of issues. A big downside, though, is that once the President takes ownership of an issue it is instantly polarized by also turning many Republicans against it.
A new Washington Post poll perfectly highlights this phenomenon by asking half their sample if they support an issue position and the other half if they support the “Obama proposed” position.
Without Obama’s name attached, a pathway for citizenship has the support of 70 percent of Americans, including 60 percent of Republicans. When Obama’s name is attached to the idea, however, its overall support drops to just 59 percent primarily because only 39 percent of Republicans would support the “Obama proposed” pathway.
The poll also asked if people would favor policies to address climate change. The overall level of support was the same with or without Obama’s name attached but the phrasing of the question made a big difference in the partisan breakdown. Among Democrats, 65 percent support policies to reduce climate change but 71 percent of Democrats support Obama-backed policies. While 32 percent of Republicans were open to the federal government addressing climate change, support dropped to just 24 percent when Obama’s name was attached.
The best chance for immigration reform will be if Obama is able to thread the needle. The President needs to push for it without being seen as taking ownership of it.
14 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Well, pres “bipartisany” still stirs the base. I can see why his name polarizes issues: I automatically assume that whatever he proposes is going to be bad for me in the long run. Soon after he was elected the first time, I realized that o’s eleventy dimensional chess game was against me and I didn’t know that I had been playing.
I’m not sure the conclusion that attaching Obama’s name to an issue is instantly polarized by turning many Republicans against it.
The favorability breakdown by party ID is interesting.
Illegal Aliens
Rep Fav = 60%
Dem Fav = 78%
Obama + Illegal Aliens
Rep Fav = 39%
Dem Fav = 75%
Attaching Obamas name drops favorability by Rep by 21%, but also drops favorability by Dem by 3%???
Gun Control
Rep Fav = 30%
Dem Fav = 60%
Obama + Gun Control
Rep Fav = 31%
Dem Fav = 76%
Attaching Obamas name raises favorability by Rep by 1%, and raises favorability by Dem by 16%.
Afgh War
Rep Fav = 66%
Dem Fav = 78%
Obama + Afgh War
Rep Fav = 62%
Dem Fav = 86%
Attaching Obamas name drops favorability by Rep by 4%, but raises favorability by Dem by 8%.
Climate Chg
Rep Fav = 32%
Dem Fav = 65%
Obama + Climate Chg
Rep Fav = 24%
Dem Fav = 71%
Attaching Obamas name drops favorability by Rep by 8%, but raises favorability by Dem by 6%.
It appears that Obama boosters in the Dem party more than make up for any Rep drop in support when it comes to attaching Obamas name to an issue.
Does public support influence policy? I don’t mean that flippantly – I honestly wonder if we’ve reached an environment where opinion of the general public is completely irrelevant to what actually happens in DC.
“It appears that Obama boosters in the Dem party more than make up for any Rep drop in support when it comes to attaching Obamas name to an issue.”
The point of the article was that the name polarizes people, and this is borne out by your figures.
There are two actual issues:
1) whether Obama even means what he says, or whether he proposes de minimus ‘solutions’ to keep up the charade of progress, his hopey changey masquerade.
2) Whether Obama is even capable of using the bully pulpit. With the stark diversion on issues, by party, if Obama really experienced commitment, there have been numerous opportunities to stick his scrawny neck out once or twice When he may be said to have done so, it has been only after being dragged screaming and kicking to embrace a position. I.e., no leadership; barely followership.
Further the excuse that republican obstructionism has precluded an assertive approach to issues falls so short of credible because:
1) if it’s inevitable, it is only smart politics, after over 4 years, to have woken up
2) the use of the bully pulpit presupposes intransigent opposition
3) failure to use use the bully pulpit sufficient to the challenge — if the resulting paralysis of governance isn’t in fact a charade — defines a presidency, ipso facto (!), as weak. Obama scores high on weak.
So among the most likely conclusions, Obama is either weak, corrupted, or both. Too bad for the nation.
Laying blame at the feet of a radically polarized politics defines the setting for confrontation. Extending that to explaining Obama’s weak performance excuses that bad performance by blaming everyone and everything else.
This just proves which side is driving the hyper-partisanship and polarization. Conservatives are very tribal and that explains why so many of them are racist.
There are many things that I don’t like about Obama, but he has made the effort many times–too many times and in too obsequious a way–to accommodate and even appease the Republicans. They always respond by spitting on his outstretched hand and running farther to the right.
If you’ve followed the polling on the wars in recent years, then you’d know that public opinion has little to no influence on foreign policy. Domestic policy is more sensitive to public opinion, but only if it is not countered by the will of a well organized, well funded lobby.
What do you mean by that? Really, name any important policy over the past, say, ten years that has been passed because the public supports it or repealed because the public opposes it?
From Medicare Modernization to PPACA, from GWOT to OCO, from PATRIOT Act renewal to FISAAA reauthorizations, these things aren’t happeneing because some voter-based constituency is asking for them, I would argue.
Good news – President Obama has the ability to make right-wing Republicans abandon their own policies.
Bad news – He also makes Democrats and progressives abandon their own policies and embrace right-wing Republican policies.
So, what the surveys don’t tell us is whether conservative pundits convinced the voters that anything Obama supports is bad for them….
Or whether FDL has convinced Republicans that anything that Obama supports is bad for them.
At least Obama has united the conservatives and progressives (here at FDL) that Obama is seeking to destroy America, so Obama has changed the political tone from red vs blue America to One America opposed to the democratic government by Congress legislating and Obama executing the laws passed by Congress.
Now if only progressives and conservatives would get together and fix the Republican Party by improving the candidates that come out of the primary election process.
The repeal of Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. Immigration reform is now being seriously considered because of the results of the last election. There are times when policy initiatives are scuttled because of public outcry. For example, the piracy bills PIPA and SOPA. There are other examples that you could find if you really wanted to see them and did the research.
Agree, thanks.
Polarization is nothing new; it has progressively gotten worse here in the US since the elimination of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which lead to right- and left-wing media outlets turning their audiences flatly against politicians by name, much in this way (http://empiricalmag.blogspot.com/2013/02/february-excerpt-policies-of.html).
Hey npl, I’m not sure how that disagrees with my point. DADT was one of those wedge issues that is not generally ranked as a high priority. It’s the classic distraction; faux controversy while the bigger policy issues happen in the shadows. It’s also a great example where what worked wasn’t general opinions of the populace. It was specific activism and civil disobedience by a dedicated few to pressure Obama to do something he didn’t want to do. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Justice Elena Kagan, said that preventing employment discrimination was a moral obligation.
Until it wasn’t, when Obama’s economic adviser, Larry Summers, instructed Kagan to allow the military to engage in employment discrimination. Kagan dutifully modified her sense of moral obligation by making a minor 180 degree turn on the issue.
Immigration reform must be a joke; I’m not at all sure what you mean by this? President Obama has generally been an enthusiastic supporter of the two tiered justice system, and specifically on immigration, the Administration has been arresting more people than any other President before him. Literally we are talking about Obama sending law enforcement after hundreds of thousands low-income and otherwise powerless people while the big crooks in our society go free.
PIPA/SOPA took unprecedented levels of opposition and still the idiocy isn’t dead. This is another great example of an area where Obama specifically, and most Dems in DC generally, aren’t listening to the will of the people. They are actively trying to circumvent it.