Why Barry's No Harry
From Karl Rove's column in the Wall Street Journal today:
Twice since Saturday, Mr. Obama's approval rating in the Gallup daily tracking poll has hit 39%, his lowest mark so far. No president in more than 50 years has been re-elected with approval ratings so low at this point in his term. The odds are that Harry Truman's improbable come-from-behind victory in 1948 won't be matched anytime soon.
This Obama-as-Truman trope has been getting a little play lately--Norman Ornstein had a piece drawing the comparison in the Washington Post recently, and you'll hear it mentioned on talk shows--but I ain't buyin'.
Here's why:
By 1948 Harry Truman had announced the Truman Doctrine, established the Marshall Plan, and saved Berlin from Stalin by launching (over the opposition of nearly all his advisers) the Berlin Airlift. Much of the reason Truman proved unpopular, indeed, was that he was telling Americans what they didn't want to hear--but had to hear: namely that, even though they were sick of war, they had no choice but to engage in a new war, the Cold War. Truman, in other words, had grounded his presidency in reality, and voters ultimately respected him for it. Obama? Reality? Please.
Oh, and then there's this: Throughout most of 1948, the unemployment rate remained below 4 percent, less than half the current rate. (In December 1948, the month after the presidential election, the rate rose to an even four percent.) And although by the fourth quarter of 1948 the economy was dipping into a recession, the growth rate for the year averaged two percent. The way things are looking Obama would be lucky to match that rate next year.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
I've never seen a president so often compared to other presidents as Obama. Unfortunately for him and us as a country, the best fit is Carter. I'm sure the Left wishes he were like Kennedy, FDR, Lincoln, Reagan, Clinton and now Truman, but that's not even close to reality.
Mar '11
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Barry’s merely harried.
Jul '10
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Obama, if you hear someone comparing you to Truman and you haven't yet won reelection, don't always believe what you hear.
Apr '11
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Michael Barone had an article on this recently. He too credited the Berlin Airlift, but also the farm vote which was, needless to say, far more significant in 1948 than it is now.
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Here is another difference. Truman was not beloved within his own party. It was suffering FDR-nostalgia. Obama may have fallen from grace within his party -- but it is not because they long for anyone else (certainly, not Slick Willie). He is a disappointment in his own right.
One of the reasons that I am inclined to support Paul Ryan over Rick Perry (at least on the evidence available to me today) is that, if the Republicans nominate a man with a soothing manner, a lot of Democrats will throw up their hands and stay home on election day. If, on the other hand, we nominate a big, brazen Texan who rubs them in every way wrong . . . well, you get the idea.
May '11
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
"It's the economy stupid." Slow economic growth mixed in with an unemployment rate over 9% and Barry is toast. Under this scenerio the Republicans could nominate Charles Manson and win.
Mar '11
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Indeed - Barry in no Harry - nor is he Ronald, Jack, Jimmy, Woodrow or Abe.
Karl - maybe, or wannabe.
Edited on Aug 18, 2011 at 3:59pmDec '10
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Doc Rahe, I agree with you, but that sentences me to the soft tyranny of low expectations. Ryan is a Progressive, from the home of the Progressive party, in his own words. Perry is also a devout Progressive (he doesn't mention it, much).
We all trip over ourselves to try to latch on to an acceptable alternative to the worst candidate in history, just so we won't "blow it" by picking somebody too off-putting to the other side. 30% of the other side will vote for Obama no matter what, and that includes many of the 50% that pay nothing in federal income taxes. Guess what? I pay no federal income taxes, any longer. I won't be voting for a Democrat.
When I didn't like Bush, I knew I was amongst those that disapproved of him in polls, but also knew it was because he was a big spending, liberal, weenie, incapable of speaking, strapped our soldiers with impossible ROEs, dummy. And that's the truth. How many people are independent of the Republican estabishment, simply because they despise them?
Personally, I won't settle for a Perry or a Ryan. I want a gladiator.
Sep '10
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Caption for Photo #2:
"Jerry, its like a sauna in here."
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
I agree that Obama-Truman comparisons are farfetched, almost to the point of absurdity. And the electorate of 2012 is very different from that of 1948. Unfortunately, I think there's some wishful (or at least premature) thinking in this thread.
There was a piece in National Journal yesterday that, while somewhat sloppily written (or edited), made the point that favorability ratings ("do you like the guy?") are actually more relevant to the question of electability than approval ratings (do you agree with what he's doing?"). The latter tend to be more volatile, the former more stable and harder to reverse. Virtually every president has had, at one time or another, low approval ratings. But the ones who became genuinely unpopular -- Carter, Bush in his second term -- saw the bottom fall out of their favorability ratings.
Obama's favorability ratings remain comfortably north of 50%. I find this next door to incomprehensible, myself -- this arrogant, elitist, petulant, whining, ineffective man seems about as hard to "like" as any public figure in memory, with the possible exception of Nixon -- but it remains a fact. Unless this changes, 2012 is going to be a tough, uphill climb.
Aug '11
Re: Why Barry's No Harry
Barry went to Columbia and Harvard Law. Harry only graduated from high school, but developed his leadership style commanding men in WW1.
Barry was a community organizer and a law professor. Harry worked on the railroad, as a mailman, farmer, and haberdasher.
Both come out of machine politics: Barry was a product of Chicago. Harry was the "senator from Pendergast."
In Congress Barry spent his time campaigning for higher office. Harry made his name exposing military waste and mismanagement during WWII.
As president Barry eschewed difficult decisions (addressing entitlement reform and tax reform, namely). So far he hasn't lived up to Truman's famous phrase: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Harry dropped the bomb (much to the consternation of liberal intellectuals to this day) stood up to Stalin with the Berlin airlift and (after the 1948 election) fired the popular general Douglas MacArthur.
Barry comes across as a latte sipping, volvo drivin', law professen' member of the liberal elite. Harry came across as tough, salt of the earth, and grounded in reality.
In Barry's defense: he got health care through Congress. Just shows he's no Harry.