|
As the corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies and their echo chambers--after ignoring Hugo Chavez's amazing run of high (60% range) approval ratings over the last decade--pop the champagne corks and high-five each other for "a job well done" over recent Chavez slippages in the polls, it's good to review a couple of things--one, that nobody stays that popular (human beings are fickle, and will develop resentment against a popular leader, sometimes for valid reasons but sometimes for no reason at all); two, that no president can solve all problems, and will sooner or later be blamed for the ones he hasn't managed to solve; and three, presidents who suffer dips in the polls sometimes recover their standing with the public. I ran across this article (below) and thought it interesting as an overview of U.S. presidential approval ratings (mid-20th century to now). I think the piece is too slick and superficial as it glides over issues and profound events (some of them hidden) in the fortunes of various presidents (Carter especially), and it misses some really big points, among them that LBJ's spectacular victory in the 1964 presidential election, followed by his precipitous fall in the polls, was in large part due to his having sold himself as "the peace candidate" (I know--that was my first vote for president), and within a year had the country deeply involved in a war (Vietnam) that made no sense at all. Still, I think one of the article's main points is a valid one, that some presidents have been able to turn things around. This article is mainly about Junior's failed second term. It basically says (back in 2005) that he cannot recover. Then it discusses past examples of presidents who overcame plummets in the polls (Reagan, Clinton) and some who didn't (Truman--ultimately; LBJ; Ford; Carter and Bush Senior). Again, this is about POLLS. It's not about LBJ's genocide in Vietnam or Reagan's genocide in Latin America. It's about how people perceived these leaders at various points, based on the information that they were or were not getting from the corporate press (or that the few were getting from the alternative press and disseminating to others--word of mouth). That is another matter that this article treats superficially--or rather not at all--how the corporate press, and now, the corpo-fascist press, shapes polling answers (and even polling questions). So, for what it's worth--as perspective on Chavez's long run of high approval ratings, and the dips in his popularity in these very recent polls--and, also, as to how things might go for him in the future--here is an article about the general matter: ------------- A Presidency On Life Support
by John Kenneth White
October 10, 2005(SNIP) ...any beleaguered president often looks to his predecessors for guidance. At first glance, Bush can take heart from their experiences. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, other presidents have fared poorly in public opinion polls and recovered their standing. Harry S. Truman’s first term is a case in point. In 1946, Truman’s approval rating dipped to just 27% in a Gallup poll, as Americans were fed up with labor strikes, meat shortages, and Truman’s inability to cope. Nearly forty years later, Ronald Reagan was rocked by the Iran-Contra affair, and his approval rating, in Gallup polls, fell from 62% to 47%. Bill Clinton also took a similar tumble: he began his presidency with 58% support, according to Gallup, but by 1994 his approval rating fell to 41%. Clinton’s big government health care plan, and his "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy allowing gays to serve in the military gave voters reason to think that instead of electing a New Democrat, they might just have chosen George McGovern instead.
Yet, Truman, Reagan, and Clinton recovered because they could change the subject. Harry Truman’s failure to keep the Democrats in control of Congress in 1946, gave him a perfect opportunity to rail against the "Do-Nothing Congress" two years later. Suddenly, the focus was back to the domestic New Deal-Fair Deal issues that worked for the Democrats. And to everyone’s surprise, Truman kept his job.
Ronald Reagan learned from the Truman experience. While the Contras may have been important to Reagan in fighting communism, effecting a regime change in Nicaragua was never central to his presidency. What mattered to Reagan’s followers was reducing taxes and winning the Cold War. After the Iran-Contra scandal became public, Reagan dropped most references to the Sandinista regime and returned to familiar themes. Also sustaining Reagan was the public’s affection: at the height of the Iran-Contra affair, 75% said they liked Reagan personally, according to Gallup, while 18% did not.
Perhaps no president knew how to change the subject better than Bill Clinton. After the drubbing he took in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton ditched Hillary’s health care proposals and opted to enact bite-sized portions -- e.g., insuring the children of the unemployed. Gays in the military were also forgotten, as Clinton turned his laser-like attention to family and values issues, including the desirability of having children wear school uniforms. In 1996, Clinton famously noted that "the era of big government is over," and he signed a welfare reform bill over the objections of many Democrats. By echoing Reagan’s themes and keeping his focus on the middle class, Clinton won an easy victory over Bob Dole.
On the other hand, six presidents since FDR have failed to recoup their public standing: Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.
In 1952, Harry Truman saw his job approval rating fall to a mere 22% in the Gallup Poll. By then, Truman had become mired in the Korean War. Day after day, U.S. soldiers battled the North Koreans and Chinese for control of one small hill or another, without either side winning a decisive victory. Americans tired of Truman and felt he had no plan for resolving the conflict, and they turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower -- especially after the World War Two general told voters, "I shall go to Korea."
Lyndon B. Johnson had a similar experience as he saw his landslide victory melt in the Vietnamese tropical heat. A Gallup poll taken in August 1968 found just 35% giving Johnson positive marks. In many ways, LBJ foresaw his political demise, telling columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak after the 1964 election:
"I was just elected by the biggest popular margin in the history of the country, fifteen million votes. Just by the natural way people think and because Barry Goldwater scared the hell out of them, I have already lost two of these fifteen and am probably getting down to thirteen. If I get into any fight with Congress, I have already lost another couple of million, and if I have to send any more boys into Vietnam, I may be down to eight million by the end of the summer." (--LBJ)
In 1973, Richard Nixon’s presidency was caught in the web of Watergate. Gallup showed Nixon with a dismal approval rating of 30%. Repeatedly, he tried to change the focus to other issues, at one point telling Congress in 1974, "One year of Watergate is enough." But the Watergate tape revelations only intensified the media and public focus on Nixon’s wrongdoing. By the time he left office, just 24% approved of his performance, according to Gallup.
Gerald Ford, too, suffered a crippling blow to his public esteem. Starting with a breathtaking 71% job approval, his support dropped 21 points in the Gallup Poll after his decision to pardon Nixon. Declaring that Watergate had been "an American tragedy" and "someone must write the end to it," Ford hoped the pardon would turn public attention away from Nixon and toward more pressing matters -- including high energy prices and a stubbornly persistent inflation rate. But, according to Louis Harris & Associates, 60% thought Ford was wrong to issue the pardon, and 62% said it condoned two standards of justice: one for the rich and powerful; another for the ordinary citizen. Ford could never fully escape the fallout from his unpopular act. A CBS News 1976 exit poll found 14% mentioned Watergate and the Nixon pardon as an important issue, and an overwhelming percentage of these disenchanted voters backed Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter was the fifth president to suffer a fatal blow in public support. At the onset of his presidency, Carter received a 66% job approval rating, according to Gallup. Yet, just three years later, Carter’s approval plummeted to 29% in the Gallup Poll. In response, Carter delivered his famous "malaise speech," declaring that there was a "crisis of confidence" in government. Voters disagreed, thinking the government mechanisms did work and that nothing was wrong with their character. Instead, they thought something was decidedly wrong with Carter’s leadership, and they ousted him in a landslide. Public disdain toward Carter persisted long after his presidency ended: a 1988 Harris poll gave Carter the dubious distinction of being first (with 46%) in the category "least able to get things done."
George H. W. Bush also suffered a fatal fall in public esteem. Shortly after the Persian Gulf War, the elder Bush won plaudits and an 89% approval rating, according to Gallup. But Americans are a restless people, and following the quick war the economy remained foremost on their minds. By 1992, voters thought Bush was inattentive to their concerns and he received a dismal 37% of the vote -- exactly his approval rating in a pre-election Gallup poll.
What unites these six failed presidencies is each man’s inability to change the subject.** Harry Truman could not get the public’s mind off the Korean War. Lyndon Johnson could not get people to focus on anything else except Vietnam and race riots. Richard Nixon could not erase the airing of the Watergate tapes (even as he tried to erase them in fact). Gerald Ford could not ameliorate voter anger over the Nixon pardon. Jimmy Carter became identified with his malaise speech and the Iranian hostage crisis. And George H. W. Bush was a foreign policy president at a time when voters could have cared less.
George W. Bush is likely to share the fates of his predecessors for one reason: he can’t change the subject. Bush cannot take the focus away from the aftereffects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; Iraq continues to drain U.S. lives and resources with no end in sight; and (thanks to Iraq and the hurricanes) the fiscal crisis facing the next president has come four years early. Even when Bush has tried to refocus attention elsewhere, voters have answered with a resounding "NO!" For example, a Gallup poll taken in July found 62% saying they disapproved of George W. Bush’s Social Security proposals.http://www.pollingreport.com/whitejk.htm--------------------- **I also have to say that I don't agree with this sentence... "What unites these six failed presidencies is each man’s inability to change the subject."...partly because of its superficiality, and partly because it fails to account for how the corpo-fascist press influences whether or not a president can "change the subject." The gist of the sentence is that "changing the subject" is all that matters, not the substance of what is occurring. I would say that, in LBJ's case, the substance of what was happening--a million people being slaughtered in Vietnam, and thousands of body bags coming home--overrode anything LBJ could say, because the corporate press at that time actually told the American people (and showed them in TV images) what was really happening. In the case of Carter, on the other hand, and the Iran hostage crisis--a major cause of his political demise--the treason of Reagan's gang was a secret and is still not known by most Americans. (How could Carter "change the subject" when Reagan's henchmen had made a deal with the Iranians to hold on to the hostages until after the 1976 election?) And in a third case, Clinton, the substance of what was happening (a long run of prosperity for the middle and upper-middle--and of course the rich--classes overrode his personal peccadilloes, which no one really cared about (--despite the incessant noise about them in the corpo-fascist press). In short, Clinton could "change the subject" because the economy was booming. As applied to Hugo Chavez, who has had such steady popular support for so long, a lot will depend on how his conservative management of Venezuela's oil revenues and other policies buffer Venezuelans against the worldwide, Bushwhack-induced Depression. And it really has been conservative--i.e., they've used the money in the best way possible, to bootstrap the poor and stimulate the economy, and have also saved a lot of money as a "rainy day" fund, which is coming in handy now for financing Venezuela's budget amidst fallen oil prices and worldwide economic slowdown. The government predicts lowered inflation next year (still high, but down significantly from this year), 0.05% economic growth (after a run of nearly 10% economic growth during 2003 to 2008, mostly in the private sector) and full funding of social programs. If these promises are not fulfilled, and Venezuelans start getting hit hard by the Depression, nothing Chavez says will make much difference. He HAS had a good "jawboning" ability, vis a vis the truly wretched corpo-fascist press in Venezuela, but if his economic policies fail, he will likely continue downward in the polls, and may not even run in 2012. He does not, however, have LBJ's problems--a massive bloodbath that couldn't be hidden; nor scandals like Watergate or "Iran-Contra." So if the Venezuelan economy remains stable or improves, his polls will likely recover--or, if Venezuela gets into significant economic trouble, and he and his team manage it well, he could also recover his high approval rating (i.e., if people suffer from the Depression but generally feel hopeful and confident). He was bound to hit some bumps along the road, given his long tenure, and his almost unreal run of popularity. This may be just that--an overdue cyclical bump. Or it could mean the beginning of the end of his career as president--and we will see a new face in 2012 (if the opposition can find a candidate who isn't scandal-ridden and has a decent program, other than the rich getting richer and shitting on the poor, which is all they've offered thus far). |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
