Posted by Jan on April 10, 2009, 10:39 am, in reply to "Re: G-20 Summit: "Give the this guy a chance"."
66.215.57.194
Here's an interesting little piece that was in the Washington Post this week by Michael Gerson, entitled "The Most Polarizing President":
(Take it or leave it. I don't know the guy's credentials or party affiliation, but his email address is michaelgerson@cfr.org)
"Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times? Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush? No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama. According to the Pew Research Center, the gap between Republican and Democractic approval ratings for Bush a few months into his first term was about 51 percentage points. For Obama, this partisan gap stands at 61 points. Obama has been a unifier of sorts. He has united Democrats and united Republicans -- against each other. The Pew Report notes that this is the extension of a long-term trend. Decades ago, a majority of Democrats approved of Richard Nixon's job performance early in his first term. A majority of Republicans did the same for Jimmy Carter. But that has not been true for any president since."
The article goes on to quote several authors and economists and to describe what just happened with the latest budget resolutions. . . "That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majority forced its wil. It would have been relatively easy for President Obama to divide the Republican coalition, peeling off less-partisan Republicans with geniune outreach. Many Republicans were prepared to accept short-term deficits to stimulate the economy in exchange for long-term fiscal responsibility. Obama could have focused more narrowly on resolving the financial crisis -- the key to all economic recovery -- and delayed his ambitions on other issues to a more realistic time. In the process, he might have gotten some Republicans to share his political risks instead of nursing grievances on the sidelines.
"There is an argument in favor of political polarization. Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, in their time, were polarizing presidents precisely because they were ambitious presidents. They believed that some natiional goals were worth the sacrifice of amity. A decisive leader is sometimes a divisive leader. But Obama's polarizing approach challenges and changes the core of his political identity. His moderate manner and message appealed to a country weary of division and ambition -- a nation now asked to endure another round of both". Polarization in American politics has its own disturbing momentum, aided by some strident Republican voices. But that does not require a president to make it worse. And it is a sad, unnecessary shame that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division."
And sadly, I think that this angry conversation amongst us is just a prime example. . . Discussion and conversation is one thing, and, on its own, a good thing. When you add in the anger and insult, that changes everything, to my way of thinking. Just my opinion. . .
45
